/usr/local/projects/usca/indexes/USCA-ALL.index Search the Opinions of the US Circuit Courts
skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Did you mean AND AND Georgia?

Your query 505 AND 42 AND Georgia returned 338 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 OPINION/ORDER
The defendants appeal only the jury's determination that they are liable under the CWA and the RCRA. We conclude that there was substantial evidence for the jury to find the defendants liable under the CWA and the RCRA. The facts are taken largely from the district court's order denying the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law. 2 1 * Parker moved into the house located on that property in 1983 and lived there until medical problems forced her to move out in 1998. The house at 9144 Washington Street has remained vacant.2 The property adjoining the Parker property is 8194 Washington Street (
989 LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381)

Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany

Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.

989 LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381)

Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany

Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.

950 OPINION/ORDER
It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written.
854 OPINION/ORDER
The key issue is whether. Did not resolve it because all but one of the claims for relief in that appeal were rendered moot by a repeal of the challenged ordinance. CAMP was unable to apply for a permit because Atlanta imposed a moratorium on the issuance of permits from November 27. That other provisions were constitutional. (2) whether the challenge by CAMP to the moratorium on festival permits is moot because the moratorium has expired. Our review of these issues involving these parties is familiar territory. We also conclude that the complaint of CAMP regarding the denial of its application for a permit during the moratorium is not moot. A
843 OPINION/ORDER
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
840 SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)

The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.

I.

The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:

English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.

Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of

840 SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)

The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.

I.

The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:

English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.

Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of

840 OPINION/ORDER
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. I. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
797 OPINION/ORDER
We reverse this decision and uphold the constitutionality of Regulation 61 12 because (1) the Regulation serves a valid state interest and is little more than a codification of national medical and abortion association recommendations designed to ensure the health and appropriate care of women seeking abortions. Are even yet modest and have not been shown to burden the ability of a woman to make the decision to have an abortion. (4) abortion clinics may rationally be regulated as a class while other clinics or medical practices are not. South Carolina regulated clinics at which secondtrimester abortions were performed. The South Carolina legislature amended its statute to require any
797 TYLER V. CITY OF MANHATTAN

The district court ruled that compensatory damages for mental and emotional injury were not available under the ADA absent intentional discrimination. The district court further concluded that Tyler had not claimed he was subjected to intentional discrimination. No cause exists for this court to resolve an issue raised not by Tyler but by the United States as amicus: whether compensatory damages are recoverable for unintentional violations of the ADA. Is disabled within the meaning of the ADA.(2) He is partially paralyzed and essentially unable to read. Sitting by designation. (1) The City suggests that the district court's judgment was not a final. Appealable judgment because it ordered only injunctive relief and the district court necessarily retains jurisdiction over the parties until they have complied with the terms of the injunction. An order or judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it resolves all substantive issues on the merits and effectively ends the litigation. There was thus a final. Tyler was free to appeal from anything in that judgment or the court's prior.
780 CANADYNE-GEORGIA CORP. V. NATIONSBANK (8/11/1999, NO. 97-9357)

Claiming they were liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Woolfolk was a general partner in WCW. His will named the Bank as co executor of his estate. It was purchased by a corporate affiliate of Canadyne. It was not until the 1990s that the EPA required Canadyne to clean up the Site.

Canadyne sued. Concluding the Bank was not a

780 CANADYNE-GEORGIA CORP. V. NATIONSBANK (8/11/1999, NO. 97-9357)

Claiming they were liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Woolfolk was a general partner in WCW. His will named the Bank as co executor of his estate. It was purchased by a corporate affiliate of Canadyne. It was not until the 1990s that the EPA required Canadyne to clean up the Site.

Canadyne sued. Concluding the Bank was not a

765 CROSBY V. HOSPITAL AUTH. OF VALDOSTA AND LOWNDES CTY.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Crosby v. Who was denied staff privileges by the Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-8187.opa.html">CROSBY V. HOSPITAL AUTH. OF VALDOSTA AND LOWNDES CTY.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Crosby v. Who was denied staff privileges by the Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.1 The court affirms the summary judgment for the Attorney General on Shahar's free expression and equal protection claims for reasons set out by Judges Kravitch and Morgan in their separate opinions. Shahar's claim of violation of substantive due process is not substantially presented on appeal. Worked as a law clerk in the Department of Law during the summer of 1990. clerkship she told other clerks that she was a lesbian. Then that issue would have to be addressed. 1 Shahar was working. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412420.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are small loans with interest rates averaging 400 500% APR due on the next payday. This appeal presents the question of whether the State of Georgia may regulate a narrow segment of agency agreements between in state payday stores and out of state banks or whether the Georgia Act in issue is preempted by § 27(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/lognameprint.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jerome Wayne Johnson</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13595 / 03 00036 CR J 25 TEM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 12 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/lognameprint2.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C. Cohen</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13162 / 02 23079 CV KMM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 08 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-2709.ma3.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (3/15/2000, NO. 98-2709)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> At issue today is whether the Duval County. The total absence of state involvement in deciding whether there will be a graduation message. Who will speak. Is not state sponsored. Nor how autonomous the speaker may be in crafting her message.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case are straightforward. Other religious prayers or messages were traditionally offered. Student led prayer during the graduation ceremony so long as the administration and faculty were not involved in the decision making process. The memorandum was entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-2709.ma3.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (3/15/2000, NO. 98-2709)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> At issue today is whether the Duval County. The total absence of state involvement in deciding whether there will be a graduation message. Who will speak. Is not state sponsored. Nor how autonomous the speaker may be in crafting her message.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case are straightforward. Other religious prayers or messages were traditionally offered. Student led prayer during the graduation ceremony so long as the administration and faculty were not involved in the decision making process. The memorandum was entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982165.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 7 counsel's name is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2000/98-3692.man.html">BOYES V. SHELL OIL PRODUCTS CO. (1/4/2000, NO. 98-3692)<BR></A><BR> Florida that is allegedly contaminated with petroleum waste as a result of service stations previously owned or operated by Shell Oil Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2000/98-3692.man.html">BOYES V. SHELL OIL PRODUCTS CO. (1/4/2000, NO. 98-3692)<BR></A><BR> Florida that is allegedly contaminated with petroleum waste as a result of service stations previously owned or operated by Shell Oil Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="723"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/97-9078.man.html">MINCEY V. HEAD (3/16/2000, NO. 97-9078)<BR></A><BR> His principle grounds for relief (among twenty five grounds) are that the police obtained incriminating statements from him after he asked for a lawyer. One was Timothy Jenkins. Jones and Jenkins were barely acquainted. All three were the same age. Each was armed: Mincey was carrying a .38 caliber semi automatic Llama pistol. The drug dealer they intended to rob was not at his usual place of business. While that discussion was taking place. Noting that the area was too congested. It was closed. A store employee was one of Mincey's trailer park neighbors.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="723"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/97-9078.man.html">MINCEY V. HEAD (3/16/2000, NO. 97-9078)<BR></A><BR> His principle grounds for relief (among twenty five grounds) are that the police obtained incriminating statements from him after he asked for a lawyer. One was Timothy Jenkins. Jones and Jenkins were barely acquainted. All three were the same age. Each was armed: Mincey was carrying a .38 caliber semi automatic Llama pistol. The drug dealer they intended to rob was not at his usual place of business. While that discussion was taking place. Noting that the area was too congested. It was closed. A store employee was one of Mincey's trailer park neighbors.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="719"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115258.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Based on the conclusion that she did not have standing to assert any of her claims. Officer Tessmer was permitted to carry her service revolver. Less than four months after they were married. The district court concluded that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-2709.opn.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (5/11/1999, NO. 98-2709)<BR></A><BR> Challenge the Duval County school system's policy of permitting graduating students to vote on whether to have unrestricted student led messages at the beginning and closing of graduation ceremonies as facially and as applied violative of the Establishment Clause. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-2709.opn.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (5/11/1999, NO. 98-2709)<BR></A><BR> Challenge the Duval County school system's policy of permitting graduating students to vote on whether to have unrestricted student led messages at the beginning and closing of graduation ceremonies as facially and as applied violative of the Establishment Clause. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/98-8166.opn.html">EAGLE V. LINAHAN (10/12/2001, NO. 98-8166)<BR></A><BR> Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/98-8166.opn.html">EAGLE V. LINAHAN (10/12/2001, NO. 98-8166)<BR></A><BR> Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2107.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even though the text of this law is materially identical to one held constitutional in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. [by] the physician who is to perform the abortion. The district court concluded that the higher cost will reduce by 10% to 13% the number of abortions performed in Indiana. Some of these women will travel to states that do not require two trips. Others will forego an abortion. Some who do have an abortion in Indiana will delay that procedure until the second trimester. The judge also thought that experience in Indiana showing that the demand for abortion did not decline when information was provided on paper or over the telephone implies that the reduction in the number of abortions is attributable to higher cost (a bad reason) rather than to the statutory information (a valid reason). No. 01 2107 Indiana's statute reads as follows: 3 An abortion shall not be performed except with the voluntary and informed consent of the pregnant woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988166.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.1 We conclude that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to ask the supreme court to set aside the conviction on the ground that petitioner had been denied the equal protection right recognized by Batson v. The accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-9215.man.html">BICKERSTAFF CLAY PRODUCTS CO. V. HARRIS CTY.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bickerstaff Clay Products Co. v. Vacate in part.<p> I.<p> <p> A.<p> <p> The property in question is a landlocked 161 acre tract located in southwest Harris County. Which would have final authority over all zoning decisions. Which is the designation given to vacant property.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-9215.man.html">BICKERSTAFF CLAY PRODUCTS CO. V. HARRIS CTY.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bickerstaff Clay Products Co. v. Vacate in part.<p> I.<p> <p> A.<p> <p> The property in question is a landlocked 161 acre tract located in southwest Harris County. Which would have final authority over all zoning decisions. Which is the designation given to vacant property.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512252.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The key issue in this appeal is whether the Florida Public Service Commission complied with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and corresponding federal regulations when it approved substantial parts of the pricing plan for the lease of telecommunications equipment urged by BellSouth Telecommunications. Three of these components are central to this appeal. The first element of a local telecommunication network is its wire loops. Wire loops are the telephone wires that connect each residential customer to the network of the local carrier. Loops are made of either copper or fiber optic wire. The capabilities and cost of the loop are dependent on its type. Although copper wire is less expensive than fiber optic wire for short loops. Fiber optic is more costefficient for longer loops. The second element of a local telecommunications network is its switches. Which are computers that route calls on the network. When the wire loop is fiber optic. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975091.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. The historical facts and the procedural history necessary to understand this lawsuit are complex and extensive. The City of Belle Glade is an incorporated municipality located on the western side of Palm Beach County. Was populated by whites and stood at the City's northwest corner. Was populated by blacks and was located to the southwest of the City. These ordinances were repealed. The total population of the City of Belle Glade was 11. 393 (65.6%) were non whites and 3. 880 (34.4%) were whites.2 The following year. The population of the Osceola Center was 46% black. Whereas the population of the Okeechobee Center was 92% black and 8% Hispanic. 4 2 1 BGHA. The City Commission's minutes simply reflect that a meeting was to be arranged between the City Commission and the BGHA to discuss the possibility of annexing the Okeechobee Center. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-8207.man.html">GEORGIA MANUFACTURED HOUS. ASS'N, INC. V. SPALDING COUNTY (8/6/1998, NO. 97-8207)<BR></A><BR> The dormant Commerce Clause and that the 4:12 requirement is preempted by federal law. Two of which are relevant here. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-8207.man.html">GEORGIA MANUFACTURED HOUS. ASS'N, INC. V. SPALDING COUNTY (8/6/1998, NO. 97-8207)<BR></A><BR> The dormant Commerce Clause and that the 4:12 requirement is preempted by federal law. Two of which are relevant here. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-5091.opn.html">BURTON V. CITY OF BELLE GLADE (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5091)<BR></A><BR> The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reverse and remand Appellants' cause of action to enforce Title VI's disparate impact regulations for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975091.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. The historical facts and the procedural history necessary to understand this lawsuit are complex and extensive. The City of Belle Glade is an incorporated municipality located on the western side of Palm Beach County. Was populated by whites and stood at the City's northwest corner. Was populated by blacks and was located to the southwest of the City. These ordinances were repealed. The total population of the City of Belle Glade was 11. 393 (65.6%) were non whites and 3. 880 (34.4%) were whites.2 The following year. The City Commission's minutes simply reflect that a meeting was to be arranged between the City Commission and the BGHA to discuss the possibility of annexing the Okeechobee Center. Of who made the annexation request or whether any meeting was ever held. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/97-5091.opn.html">BURTON V. CITY OF BELLE GLADE (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5091)<BR></A><BR> The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reverse and remand Appellants' cause of action to enforce Title VI's disparate impact regulations for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114680.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was after this case was argued. We conclude that the district court's evidentiary rulings were neither an abuse of discretion. We reaffirm the basic principle that an appellate court must afford the district court's gatekeeping determinations </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968147.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Officials of the State of Georgia appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of O.C.G.A. § 21 5 35 to prohibit a member of the General Assembly from accepting contributions for a campaign for federal office while the General Assembly is in session. the district court's The court (Judge Hill dissenting) affirms grant of the preliminary injunction. Concluding that the Georgia statute is preempted by the Federal Election Campaign Act. I. Doug Teper is a member of the Georgia General Assembly who is contemplating a campaign for federal office. Teper's co plaintiffs are potential contributors to his federal campaign. Teper is precluded by a provision of the Georgia Ethics in Government Act. The Supreme Court has recognized that often in cases challenging rules governing elections there is not sufficient time between the filing of the complaint and the election to obtain judicial resolution of the controversy before the election. This exception applies under two conditions: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612370.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are state environmental regulators and local political actors. Brought a section 1983 suit against various state and local defendants on the theory that the defendants violated its constitutional right to equal protection by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/95-9595.man.html">BOWN V. GWINNETT COUNTY SCH. DIST.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bown v. Conduct a brief period of quiet reflection for not more than 60 seconds with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled.<p> <p> (b) The moment of quiet reflection authorized by subsection (a) of this Code section is not intended to be and shall not be conducted as a religious service or exercise but shall be considered as an opportunity for a moment of silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.<p> <p> (c) The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section shall not prevent student initiated voluntary school prayers at schools or school related events which are nonsectarian and nonproselytizing in nature.<p> <p> O.C.G.A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/93-9345.opa.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.<p> The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/93-9345.opa.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.<p> The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/95-9595.man.html">BOWN V. GWINNETT COUNTY SCH. DIST.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bown v. Conduct a brief period of quiet reflection for not more than 60 seconds with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled.<p> <p> (b) The moment of quiet reflection authorized by subsection (a) of this Code section is not intended to be and shall not be conducted as a religious service or exercise but shall be considered as an opportunity for a moment of silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.<p> <p> (c) The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section shall not prevent student initiated voluntary school prayers at schools or school related events which are nonsectarian and nonproselytizing in nature.<p> <p> O.C.G.A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-14340.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF GEORGIA (8/27/2001, NO. 00-14340)<BR></A><BR> The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse student body. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-14340.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF GEORGIA (8/27/2001, NO. 00-14340)<BR></A><BR> The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse student body. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014340.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse Honorable Harlington Wood. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.1 All three Plaintiffs had recently been denied admission to UGA. Therefore were. Johnson was offered admission to UGA after filing this lawsuit. They alleged that UGA's use of gender violated Equal Protection and Title IX.2 Named as Defendants were the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/96-8147.man.html">TEPER V. MILLER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Teper v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Officials of the State of Georgia appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of O.C.G.A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/96-8147.man.html">TEPER V. MILLER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Teper v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Officials of the State of Georgia appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of O.C.G.A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2326.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1597p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Poritz was the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey when this suit was instituted. Poritz resigned as Attorney General and was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Peter Verniero was appointed the Attorney General. Peter Verniero is automatically substituted as a party plaintiff for Deborah T. We disagree and will affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint. Who was then eight and one half months pregnant. Was admitted to the Jersey Shore Medical Center to give birth to her child. Alexander's baby were taken only fourteen minutes prior to delivery by cesarean section. The child was stillborn.2 An autopsy was performed. A death certificate was issued showing the date of the child's birth as July 15. The birth certificate noted the child's name was Kaylyn Elissa Alexander and that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2326B.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/97-8415.man.html">ESCARENO V. NOLTINA CRUCIBLE AND REFRACTORY CORP. (5/1/1998, NO. 97-8415)<BR></A><BR> Did not have any property in Fulton County. Nor did he have a cause of action against a Fulton County defendant. <EM>See</EM> § 15 9 31.</P> <P> To decide this case. Because this statute allows for differing interpretations and there are no controlling precedents under Georgia law. Neither Noltina Crucible nor Carl Nolte Sohne is incorporated in Georgia. Or is registered to do business in Georgia. At which time he was a resident of Salinas. Escareno is survived by a son in Mexico.</P> <P> After the defendants had filed motions for summary judgment. A suggestion of death of the plaintiff was filed. Unless there was a substitution of parties within ninety days of the suggestion of death.</P> <P> A probate judge in Fulton County. The district court based this ruling on its determination that Stolz was not properly appointed in the state court under § 15 9 31. Determined that the plaintiff should have another opportunity to request appointment of an administrator in a Georgia state court which would then </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/94-9121.ma2.html">DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Davis v. 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/97-8538.man.html">L.C. V. OLMSTEAD (4/8/1998, NO. 97-8538)<BR></A><BR> A psychiatric hospital where persons with mental disabilities are cared for in a segregated environment. The State's principal argument is that the district court's application of § 12132 and its accompanying regulations is contrary to the ADA's requirement that a plaintiff prove that he or she faced discrimination </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/97-8415.man.html">ESCARENO V. NOLTINA CRUCIBLE AND REFRACTORY CORP. (5/1/1998, NO. 97-8415)<BR></A><BR> Did not have any property in Fulton County. Nor did he have a cause of action against a Fulton County defendant. <EM>See</EM> § 15 9 31.</P> <P> To decide this case. Because this statute allows for differing interpretations and there are no controlling precedents under Georgia law. Neither Noltina Crucible nor Carl Nolte Sohne is incorporated in Georgia. Or is registered to do business in Georgia. At which time he was a resident of Salinas. Escareno is survived by a son in Mexico.</P> <P> After the defendants had filed motions for summary judgment. A suggestion of death of the plaintiff was filed. Unless there was a substitution of parties within ninety days of the suggestion of death.</P> <P> A probate judge in Fulton County. The district court based this ruling on its determination that Stolz was not properly appointed in the state court under § 15 9 31. Determined that the plaintiff should have another opportunity to request appointment of an administrator in a Georgia state court which would then </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/94-9121.ma2.html">DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Davis v. 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/97-8538.man.html">L.C. V. OLMSTEAD (4/8/1998, NO. 97-8538)<BR></A><BR> A psychiatric hospital where persons with mental disabilities are cared for in a segregated environment. The State's principal argument is that the district court's application of § 12132 and its accompanying regulations is contrary to the ADA's requirement that a plaintiff prove that he or she faced discrimination </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/952891P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nebraska (Local Office). 1988 in the district FAIR was denied access to the Local Office. Concluding that FAIR's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated because: (1) the Local Office's policy was not vague. (2) the Local Office was not a public forum. (3) the Local Office's regulation of expressive conduct was reasonable. (4) the Local Office's prohibition on FAIR's efforts to advocate its position to a captive audience was not motivated by opposition to its viewpoint. The requirement of independent appellate review is a rule of federal constitutional law. We are obliged to make a fresh examination of crucial facts. This Court's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978415.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Did not have any property in Fulton County. Nor did he have a cause of action against a Fulton County defendant. Because this statute allows for differing interpretations and there are no controlling precedents under Georgia law. Neither Noltina Crucible nor Carl Nolte Sohne is incorporated in Georgia. Or is registered to do business in Georgia. At which time he was a resident of Salinas. Escareno is survived by a son in Mexico. A suggestion of death of the plaintiff was filed. Unless there was a substitution of parties within ninety days of the suggestion of death. 2 A probate judge in Fulton County. The district court based this ruling on its determination that Stolz was not properly appointed in the state court under § 15 9 31. Determined that the plaintiff should have another opportunity to request appointment of an administrator in a Georgia state court which would then </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was argued before the en banc Court on February 27. (2) holding that the establishment of a magnet schools program was an ultra vires. King and Gregory in the affirmative) attorneys' fees for work done on the unitary status issue are denied. Nominal damages and attorneys' fees in that regard are denied. The injunction is vacated. The imposition of sanctions is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the finding of unitary status and the imposition of sanctions. The judgment of the district court vacating and dissolving all prior injunctive orders and decrees is affirmed. The Board is to operate the school system without the strictures of these decrees no later than the 2002 2003 school year. Circuit Judge: This case is hopefully the final chapter in the saga of federal court control over the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-9098.opa.html">HAMILTON V. CANNON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hamilton v. We have jurisdiction over that judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-9098.opa.html">HAMILTON V. CANNON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hamilton v. We have jurisdiction over that judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031329.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-9233.opn.html">KAY V. APFEL (5/25/1999, NO. 98-9233)<BR></A><BR> Kay was awarded over $52. We conclude that the district court's award was not an abuse of discretion.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-9233.opn.html">KAY V. APFEL (5/25/1999, NO. 98-9233)<BR></A><BR> Kay was awarded over $52. We conclude that the district court's award was not an abuse of discretion.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981658.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BY THE COURT: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J L EDMONDSON Chief Judge 2 BIRCH. Specially Concurring in the Denial of Rehearing En Banc: The dissents to the denial of rehearing en banc both agree that the Equal Protection Clause challenge to the Florida statute at issue should have been embraced by our court. 4 the vociferous dissent by my sister jurist (for whom I have great respect and affection). The Florida adoption statute at issue is constitutionally flawed. The Lofton panel's analysis and approach in this case was premised on a fundamental principal or philosophy. When he observed: Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed to be a good reflex of a democratic society. ... Their essential quality is detachment. History teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the passions of the day and assume primary responsibility in choosing between competing political. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516756.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sr. was indicted by a grand jury in the Southern District of Georgia for conspiracy. Walker is a former Georgia state legislator. He was charged along with three corporate defendants: The Augusta Focus. A holding company that owns other companies and is owned by Walker (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar97/95-5398.man.html">BROOKS V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Brooks v. Senior Circuit Judges.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The district court's grant of summary judgment to the Defendants is AFFIRMED based upon the holding and rationale contained in Part III.A of the district court's September 22. A copy of which is attached as Appendix A hereto. We have no occasion to reach the remaining issues addressed in other parts of that order and imply no view concerning any of them.<p> AFFIRMED.<p> ATTACHMENT<p> <p> APPENDIX A<p> <p> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. It is hereby<p> ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:<p> 1. Defendant Blue Cross's motion to dismiss the amended complaint (DE # 31) is GRANTED. Defendant New York Life's motion for instructions and an Order directed to Plaintiff's counsel (DE # 46) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant New York Life's combined motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment (DE # 47) is GRANTED. Defendant New York Life's corrected motion for more definite statement and for RICO case statement (DE # 56) is DENIED AS MOOT. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar97/95-5398.man.html">BROOKS V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Brooks v. Senior Circuit Judges.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The district court's grant of summary judgment to the Defendants is AFFIRMED based upon the holding and rationale contained in Part III.A of the district court's September 22. A copy of which is attached as Appendix A hereto. We have no occasion to reach the remaining issues addressed in other parts of that order and imply no view concerning any of them.<p> AFFIRMED.<p> ATTACHMENT<p> <p> APPENDIX A<p> <p> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. It is hereby<p> ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:<p> 1. Defendant Blue Cross's motion to dismiss the amended complaint (DE # 31) is GRANTED. Defendant New York Life's motion for instructions and an Order directed to Plaintiff's counsel (DE # 46) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant New York Life's combined motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment (DE # 47) is GRANTED. Defendant New York Life's corrected motion for more definite statement and for RICO case statement (DE # 56) is DENIED AS MOOT. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As follows: On page 3 the list of amici curiae is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bollinger Page 3 appeal the district court's determination that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Law School contends that its interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under Regents of the University of California v. That its admissions policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Law School is joined by the Intervenors: forty one individuals and three student groups. The policy states that the Law School's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911385.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. BACKGROUND CAMP is a non profit organization focused primarily on forming alliances and associating with other groups concerned with marijuana issues. It now fell within the 1994 Festival Ordinance's definition of an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212054ord2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Habeas petitioners and § 2255 movants have sought to circumvent the AEDPA's restrictions on second round collateral attacks in federal courts. One of the most popular vehicles used in the attempted end runs is a Fed. We entered an order granting hearing or rehearing en banc in three cases in order to answer some common questions that have arisen about the use of Rule 60(b) motions to obtain relief from judgments that denied § 2254 relief (in two of the cases before us). Which was after this case was submitted for decision. That is. 4) was it an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the Rule 60(b) motion in his case? In the sequence in which the panel decisions or orders were issued in them. A. A decade ago at a retrial Stephen Mobley was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of a Domino's Pizza employee during an armed robbery. Who had been the district attorney when the prosecution began but no longer was. He told the jury that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413210op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tanner applied for and was denied a sign permit because Tanner sought to construct signs that did not comply with section 1 43 of the Sign Ordinance. The district court denied injunctive relief on the ground that section 1 43 was constitutional and Tanner lacked standing to challenge the other provisions of the 1998 Sign Ordinance. Because all but one of the challenges by Tanner were rendered moot by the 2005 Sign Ordinance and Tanner lacks standing to challenge the remaining provision. Business or solicitation which is not carried out on the premises upon which the sign is located. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611826.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm the district court's determination that Deputy Terry was entitled to qualified immunity for effecting a warrantless arrest of McClish within his home. Because Holmberg was never convicted of a crime. We reverse the district court's judgment that his § 1983 wrongful arrest claim was barred by Heck v. The essential facts and procedural history are these. Who was not home when the deputies first arrived. The underlying conflict between the neighbors seems to have arisen over a property dispute. A number of the incidents involving threats or profanity shouted across the property line seem to have occurred when Michael Padzur was clearing brush from the disputed area. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-8594.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MILLS (4/10/1998, NO. 96-8594)<BR></A><BR> Facts</CENTER> </P> <P> The Millses were officers and majority shareholders of a Medicare services provider. A reasonable jury could have found the following facts true based on the evidence. Some detail is necessary because of the harmless error and sufficiency of the evidence issues that are presented.</P> <P><CENTER>A. <EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The Medicare home health care system has three players. Are entitled only to return of their costs in exchange for their services. Aetna Life Insurance Company was First American's intermediary during most of the time period relevant here.</P> <P> Providers generally receive biweekly payments in an amount based on quarterly figures of how many patients the provider has visited and how much each visit cost. This true up for years as far back as 1990 was incomplete at the time of trial.</P> <P> Jack brought a businessman's outlook to this cost based system. Believing that Aetna was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-8594.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MILLS (4/10/1998, NO. 96-8594)<BR></A><BR> Facts</CENTER> </P> <P> The Millses were officers and majority shareholders of a Medicare services provider. A reasonable jury could have found the following facts true based on the evidence. Some detail is necessary because of the harmless error and sufficiency of the evidence issues that are presented.</P> <P><CENTER>A. <EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The Medicare home health care system has three players. Are entitled only to return of their costs in exchange for their services. Aetna Life Insurance Company was First American's intermediary during most of the time period relevant here.</P> <P> Providers generally receive biweekly payments in an amount based on quarterly figures of how many patients the provider has visited and how much each visit cost. This true up for years as far back as 1990 was incomplete at the time of trial.</P> <P> Jack brought a businessman's outlook to this cost based system. Believing that Aetna was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1365.html">BAYER AG & BAYER CORP. V. ELAN PHARMACEUTICAL<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Jeffrey B. With him on the brief were <U>Richard M. An ANDA can be filed if the generic drug manufacturer s active ingredient is the ". A manufacturer must certify one of four statements concerning the applicable listed drug: (i) the listed drug is not patented (a ". Is invalid or . . . it will not be infringed by the manufacture. If an ANDA is certified under Paragraph IV. The applicant must notify the patent s owner of the certification. <U>See</U> 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(B). </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0011p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Attempted to have a government witness killed. The parties have stipulated that Chandler is African American. One of the very important questions is whether or not you would be able to serve on the jury if the trial were to last from three to six weeks. Your response was that you are not able to sit on the jury. Have you had an opportunity to think about that response recognizing that it's an important obligation of citizenship to serve on a jury when called. It certainly is inconvenient for everyone? Are you willing to serve if you are selected? If I have to. I will. If you were selected would you then hold it against either of the parties? Would you hold it against the government or the defendants if you were selected to serve? Do you recognize and agree that it is an important service that we are all required to perform from time to time? CHANDLER: I recognize that if I have to do it. Could you tell us if it is not such a great invasion of your privacy as to why you're so reluctant to serve? Do you understand that under our system of law every person is equal and every person is entitled to equal protection of the laws. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A3AC4A8F164DA30288256BBA0080B31D/$file/9935320.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACE gives aggrieved persons a right of action against whoever by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511951.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Ricky Bracewell from an order of the district court excluding from the estate a payment Bracewell received under the Agricultural Assistance Act of 2003 for crop losses he had sustained. The appeal turns on the issue of whether a crop disaster payment is property of the debtor's estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) or (a)(6) if the losses occurred before the bankruptcy filing or conversion date but the legislation authorizing the payment came afterwards. The bankruptcy court ruled that the payments were property of the estate under § 541(a)(1) but not under (a)(6). The district court ruled that the payment was not property of the bankruptcy estate under either subsection of § 541. This is the trustee's appeal from that ruling. I. The facts have been stipulated throughout these proceedings. He was unable to repay the debts he had incurred to produce the crops. While Bracewell's bankruptcy petition was pending. The Emergency Farmer and Rancher Assistance Act of 2002 was introduced in the House of Representatives. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F569EF00290007188256BC0005876E6/$file/9935320ebcorrected.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\temp21\PlannedParenthoodLetter1.wpd
535 OPINION/ORDER
The issue before us in this appeal is whether Canon 5 of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. Were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in maintaining the independence and impartiality of Minnesota's judiciary. Were not impermissibly vague. I. The Minnesota Constitution provides that judges
535 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this case are an organization called
528 OPINION/ORDER
He claimed that his rights under the First Amendment's Speech Clause were violated when Allred and Harland punished him for silently raising his fist during the daily flag salute instead of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the rest of his class. He further claims that his Establishment Clause rights were violated by Allred's daily
524 OPINION/ORDER
The remarkable facts of this case make it indisputable that a substantial punitive damages award is warranted. Defendants' conduct was particularly egregious and a higher award to deter the casino from sanctioning such conduct in the future was appropriate. 000 will just as adequately serve the interests of punishment and deterrence and fits more comfortably in the ballpark of punitive awards that have been upheld in similar cases. Romanski then noticed there were also three female casino employees. One of these plain clothed security officers was Defendant Marlene Brown. Began to explain it was the casino's policy not to permit patrons to pick up tokens. Romanski could not have known this at the time because the casino does not post the so called policy anywhere. It is undisputed. That Romanski did not have ­ and could not have had ­ notice of the casino's purported policy on slot walking. It is undisputed that Brown and her colleagues escorted Romanski to what Defendants alternately call the
521 OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
521 OPINION/ORDER
This is a contract murder case with irreconcilable jury verdicts leading one defendant to be sentenced to death and another the defendant who initiated. Were charged with committing the murder of Ann Serafino and the 1 No. 03 3200 Getsy v. Santine was charged with hiring the other three defendants to kill Chuckie Serafino. Santine was sentenced to life imprisonment when a jury found him guilty of aggravated murder but not guilty of hiring Getsy to commit the murder. McNulty and Hudach were sentenced to life imprisonment after they were allowed to plead guilty. Expressed its dismay about the disproportionate nature of these inconsistent results: That Hudach received a lesser penalty than Getsy is not surprising Hudach did not enter the Serafino home. He was offered a plea bargain. Getsy was not. McNulty's case was not a case of the state's needing to secure testimony to obtain a conviction on a more culpable person. It is also troubling that Santine did not receive the death sentence even though he initiated the crime.
521 OPINION/ORDER
The district court concluded that both Rule 7 and its inherent power are legitimate sources of authority for including attorneys' fees within an appellate cost bond. That it was appropriate to rely on both of these bases in holding appellant jointly and severally liable for posting a $180. We conclude that although the district court correctly determined that there are cases in which anticipated attorneys' fees may be included in an appellate cost bond. It erred in holding that this is such a case. I. The factual and procedural history of this large class action is straightforward but complex. Pedraza is the representative of a class of borrowers who obtained mortgage insurance from defendants United Guaranty Corporation and United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company (collectively
521 OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
521 OPINION/ORDER
Was severely damaged when the train carrying the cargo derailed in Texas. The bills of lading were
510 ALLISON V. MCGHAN MED. CORP. (8/18/1999, NO. 99-8053)

We conclude that the district court's Daubert rulings were correct. The left implant was replaced in December 1980 by a model also manufactured by 3M/McGhan. (Appellant's Br. at 3.)

In 1986 Allison was diagnosed with Hashimoto's thyroiditis (diffuse infiltration of the thyroid gland with white blood cells. Allison was diagnosed with Type I diabetes mellitus.

510 ALLISON V. MCGHAN MED. CORP. (8/18/1999, NO. 99-8053)

We conclude that the district court's Daubert rulings were correct. The left implant was replaced in December 1980 by a model also manufactured by 3M/McGhan. (Appellant's Br. at 3.)

In 1986 Allison was diagnosed with Hashimoto's thyroiditis (diffuse infiltration of the thyroid gland with white blood cells. Allison was diagnosed with Type I diabetes mellitus.

503 OPINION/ORDER
We are compelled to agree with Alabama and must decline the ACLU's invitation. I. BACKGROUND Because the various user appellees and vendor appellees are all represented by the ACLU.
503 OPINION/ORDER
The central issue on appeal is whether Tanner has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute as a whole under the overbreadth doctrine. We conclude that Tanner is entitled to overbreadth standing. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Tanner is a Georgia limited liability company in the business of erecting and operating advertising signs to be used for both noncommercial and commercial purposes. Business or solicitation which is not carried out on the premises upon which the sign is 2 located.
499 UNITED STATES V. STEWART

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. Their three contentions are: that the district court improperly upheld the government's <i>Batson v. That they were convicted based upon their beliefs and their association with the Ku Klux Klan. Who are both black. They were some of the first blacks to live in that area. The young Ruffin girls were among the first black children to attend the local public school in the nearby community of Douglas.<p> The presence of the Ruffins in the virtually all white community agitated the membership of the Alabama Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct95/92-6988.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. STEWART<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Their three contentions are: that the district court improperly upheld the government's <i>Batson v. That they were convicted based upon their beliefs and their association with the Ku Klux Klan. Who are both black. They were some of the first blacks to live in that area. The young Ruffin girls were among the first black children to attend the local public school in the nearby community of Douglas.<p> The presence of the Ruffins in the virtually all white community agitated the membership of the Alabama Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0101p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As the issues raised in this appeal are matters of first impression among the courts of appeals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1090.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Hardy Wood Tabor & Chudacoff was on brief. The House's head doorkeeper.1 The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of House Rule 45 a rule that purports to ban both lobbyists and lobbying from the floor of the House while the House is in session on its face and as applied. Among them was Rule 45 (the full text of which is reproduced in the appendix). Rule 45 banishes all lobbyists from the floor of the House (and the House lounge) while the House is in session. The rule permits members of the public to be on the House floor while the House is in session. The legislator plaintiffs have not appealed and. Government officials who lobby are given considerably more leeway. Are otherwise exempt from the Act's provisions. Neither elected officials nor other public employees are required to wear identification badges. The House provided two galleries overlooking the chamber which were accessible to all members of the public. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/972221P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Arkansas General Assembly's goal in passing the PPA was to ensure </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/024597p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Based on its determination that Horn's claims against TCI are preempted by the express preemption provision in the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FAE8520783ADAC9588256B36008220A6/$file/9956319.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: This is a consolidated appeal brought by Medicare service providers against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415078.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will refer to Walley as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/97-5418.man.html">FLORIDA PARAPLEGIC ASS'N V. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLA. (2/3/1999, NO. 97-5418)<BR></A><BR> 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/94-3291.opn.html">BAKER V. ALDERMAN (10/19/1998, NO. 94-3291)<BR></A><BR> Baker was employed by the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser as a land evaluator. Baker took an oath stating that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/97-5418.man.html">FLORIDA PARAPLEGIC ASS'N V. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLA. (2/3/1999, NO. 97-5418)<BR></A><BR> 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0168FFB46E51AC548825718F00493302/$file/0356621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both these ordinances and Santa Monica's administrative interpretation of them have changed substantially. Appellants' persistent urging and Santa Monica's willingness to change its regulations have together produced a transformation in the applicable permitting scheme that to the credit of all par SANTA MONICA FOOD v. We hold that Santa Monica's Community Events Ordinance is. Is not constitutionally sound and cannot be enforced. The facial challenges to other ordinances either are moot or fail on the merits. We are not to be understood as having reviewed or approved aspects of the ordinances or implementing regulations not here challenged. We have endeavored throughout to be quite specific about the limited nature of the challenges to which we respond. 2 Santa Monica has requested that we take judicial notice of six documents: Staff Report. Santa Monica submits that each document is a certified public record. The first four documents are on file with the City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica. The remainder can be accessed at Santa Monica's official website found at www.santa monica.org/ccs/events and are on file with the Open Space Management Division of the Community and Cultural Services Department of the City of Santa Monica. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1997/97a1766p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that Chowdhury is not dispositive on this issue. Chowdhury did not apply this court's test for determining when it is appropriate to imply a private right of action to enforce regulations. We agree with the overwhelming number of courts of appeals that have indicated. We will reverse. 4 I. The City of Chester is located in Delaware County. Of which 65% is black and 32% is white. Of which 6.2% is black and 91% is white. It further alleges that the Chester facilities have a total permit capacity of 2.1 million tons of waste per year. While the non Chester facilities have a total permit capacity of only 1. That: Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity. Is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 2000d of this title with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules. Or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken. 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/94-3291.opn.html">BAKER V. ALDERMAN (10/19/1998, NO. 94-3291)<BR></A><BR> Baker was employed by the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser as a land evaluator. Baker took an oath stating that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/02-6201%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Vermont officials therefore broadly prohibited Huminski's Huminski complains presence in and around certain state courthouses. that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. Confers on members of the public and press to attend and report on judicial proceedings and to speak out on public issues. other is impairment of the ability of courts effectively and efficiently to protect their personnel. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a We The presumption that he was entitled to access. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTM0MjEtY3Zfc28ucGRm/04-3421-cv_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. It hereby is. While the vessel was in transit. Mirasco was unable or unwilling to discharge any of the cargo aboard the M/V Spero. The Insurers assert that the district court erred in ruling on summary judgment that 1) the policy's rejection clause was not ambiguous. We agree with the district court that the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/009000.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the District Court's order granting in part and denying in part Joseph Szuchon's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. We will grant Szuchon a certificate of appealability for his claims regarding the admission of certain psychiatric evidence in violation of Estelle v. We will affirm the District Court's denial of relief. A certificate of appealability will be denied on the remaining trial phase claims. That the Mills 2 claim is procedurally defaulted because Szuchon failed to exhaust his Mills claim in state court. State remedies are now foreclosed. Although we conclude that the Commonwealth may have waived this defense by failing to raise it in its answer to the habeas petition. We will address the question of whether the claim is procedurally defaulted. We conclude that the Mills claim is defaulted and barred from review on the merits given Szuchon's inability to show cause or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. One of which was that the state court improperly permitted the exclusion at voir dire of six prospective jurors who merely voiced opposition to the death penalty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/97-8483.man.html">MCANDREW V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. (6/18/1999, NO. 97-8483)<BR></A><BR> (2) his § 1986 claim because it is derivative of the § 1985 claim and because the one year statute of limitations had run. We reverse the district court on the § 1985 claim and affirm the decision on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>Section 1985 Claim</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine holds that acts of corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself. An anti trust case which appears to have been first to apply the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.</P> <P> The circuits are split as to whether the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine should be applied outside the antitrust field. Some circuits have extended the doctrine to apply in all types of civil actions including civil rights actions alleging a conspiracy under § 1985.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-8483.man.html">MCANDREW V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. (6/18/1999, NO. 97-8483)<BR></A><BR> (2) his § 1986 claim because it is derivative of the § 1985 claim and because the one year statute of limitations had run. We reverse the district court on the § 1985 claim and affirm the decision on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>Section 1985 Claim</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine holds that acts of corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself. An anti trust case which appears to have been first to apply the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.</P> <P> The circuits are split as to whether the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine should be applied outside the antitrust field. Some circuits have extended the doctrine to apply in all types of civil actions including civil rights actions alleging a conspiracy under § 1985.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. We conclude that each of the three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. Another is automatically reloaded into the gun's chamber. 27 C.F.R. § 178.11 (defining semiautomatic weapons). LOCKYER restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/967539A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge. *Judge Ervin heard oral argument but died before the en banc decision was filed. A convicted habitual felon who was not at the time nor yet eligible for parole under applicable law. Irving Houston Hawkins was convicted by jury trial in a North Carolina Superior Court of the sale and delivery of cocaine. He was sentenced to fifty years imprisonment on the sale and delivery of cocaine and habitual felon charges and to ten years on the possession with intent to sell cocaine charge. The ten year sentence was to be served. His ensuing confinement in the North Carolina prison system was his fifth in that system. Though this parole eligibility provision was amended later in 1981 to reduce the time of required service before parole eligibility from 75% of sentence to a flat seven years. The amended version was effective only as to offenses committed after July 1. It is therefore undisputed that Hawkins's legally prescribed parole eligibility date remained April 20. Hawkins was. The letter 3 alluded to the possibility that Hawkins </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515633.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) was clearly in error in its finding regarding disparate impact. (3) considered expert testimony that should have been excluded under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 2 II For many years. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/03-5117a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/97-8483.ma3.html">MCANDREW V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. (3/8/2000, NO. 97-8483)<BR></A><BR> We reverse the district court's order dismissing McAndrew's § 1985(2) claim as barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case are straightforward. The United States Department of Justice was investigating Lockheed's sale of three C 130 aircraft to the Arab Republic of Egypt for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 10 U.S.C. § 2409 <EM>et seq.</EM> Robert McAndrew had served as Lockheed's Director of International Marketing since 1989 and was responsible for negotiating the sale of aircraft to foreign nations.</P> <P> In the fall of 1993. McAndrew and more than 30 other Lockheed employees were subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury. McAndrew alleges that on the morning he was scheduled to appear before the grand jury. Told him specifically that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/97-8483.ma3.html">MCANDREW V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. (3/8/2000, NO. 97-8483)<BR></A><BR> We reverse the district court's order dismissing McAndrew's § 1985(2) claim as barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case are straightforward. The United States Department of Justice was investigating Lockheed's sale of three C 130 aircraft to the Arab Republic of Egypt for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 10 U.S.C. § 2409 <EM>et seq.</EM> Robert McAndrew had served as Lockheed's Director of International Marketing since 1989 and was responsible for negotiating the sale of aircraft to foreign nations.</P> <P> In the fall of 1993. McAndrew and more than 30 other Lockheed employees were subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury. McAndrew alleges that on the morning he was scheduled to appear before the grand jury. Told him specifically that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3624A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Informing him that he was banned from all public parks under the City's jurisdiction. Children were the victims. Doe was arrested for peeping into the windows of an apartment in West Lafayette. Doe was arrested for public intoxication and resisting law enforcement following a report that he was tapping on the rear window of a female's house. Which was finalized in 1991. Doe was placed on house arrest from January of 1992 to January of 1996. He then was on probation until early January of 2000. They were underage. They were behind the there's a dropoff. They were down in that area. Q. What was your purpose in going to Murdock Park that Saturday evening? As I was going home that night. I was at Columbian Park. I guess I was. I was in the mood of cruising. Q. Were you having those urges that night? What were you thinking about? ... My thoughts were thoughts I had before when I see children. Those thoughts were there. They were just thoughts. Was aware of Mr. Chief Reed explained that he gave this advice </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116602.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * This appeal requires us to determine whether we should look to the outcome of the trial or the outcome of the appeal in determining whether a petitioner was prejudiced when his attorney failed to preserve his Batson v. As we find that trial counsel is acting in an appellate role when he fails to preserve a Batson claim. [and] (2) [w]hether the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment where his attorney (a) failed to renew an objection regarding the state prosecutor's exercise of a preemptory challenge in a discriminatory manner. BACKGROUND Davis was indicted for first degree murder. He was sentenced to life in prison plus consecutive sentences of fifteen years and 201.7 months of imprisonment. Among the issues Davis raised on direct appeal was a Batson claim. Because the court inadvertently attributed the statements of one venireperson to another.2 Although the Florida Third District Court of Appeal found that Davis's Batson claim was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/99-2022.man.html">CANNABIS ACTION NETWORK V. CITY OF GAINESVILLE (10/24/2000, NO. 99-2022)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff Cannabis Action Network's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/99-2022.man.html">CANNABIS ACTION NETWORK V. CITY OF GAINESVILLE (10/24/2000, NO. 99-2022)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff Cannabis Action Network's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2647.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Background</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> The Narragansetts were aboriginal inhabitants of what is now Rhode Island. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/93-9345.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-3061.htm">97-3061 -- U.S. V. SHINAULT -- 07/08/1998<BR></A><BR> The defendant was charged with two counts of violating the Hobbs Act. Including contentions that the trial violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy and that underrepresentation of minority racial groups in the pool from which his jury was drawn violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. A jury with no alternates was sworn. (5) that Congress did not have the power to enact the Hobbs Act. The Jury Act </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-3061a.htm">97-3061A -- U.S. V. SHINAULT -- 07/08/1998<BR></A><BR> The defendant was charged with two counts of violating the Hobbs Act. Including contentions that the trial violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy and that underrepresentation of minority racial groups in the pool from which his jury was drawn violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. A jury with no alternates was sworn. (5) that Congress did not have the power to enact the Hobbs Act. The Jury Act </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-1085.htm">98-1085 -- HENO V. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY -- 04/03/2000<BR></A><BR> Judgment was entered against Sprint. Remand for a new trial. <p> <center><u>Background</u></center> <p> Plaintiff Andrea Heno is a woman of mixed racial background (Creole and other) who principally identifies herself as a black person. Was promoted to senior sales representative. Her immediate supervisor in the sales department was Don Libby. Ordway was selected for the position. Heno was away from the office on sick leave and short term disability. The only issues to go to the jury were the Title VII failure to promote claim against Sprint. They determined that race was not a motivating factor in Mr. He was not liable. The district court determined that it was inappropriate to give an award for both Title VII and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0087p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Charging that the City refused to hire him as a police officer because he is infected with the human immunodeficiency virus ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/93-9345.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/987156.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether the First Amendment precludes imposition of civil damages for the disclosure of portions of a tape recording of an intercepted telephone conversation containing information of public significance when the defendants. Wyoming Valley West School District was in contract negotiations with the Wyoming Valley West School District Teachers' Union (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/049005p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sr. was found guilty by a Bucks County. He was sentenced to death for the murder of his wife. Subsequent to the District Court's granting the writ our decision in Banks was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in Beard v. We hold that the defense was properly raised for the first time in the brief on appeal. Thus it is not waived. Because the District Court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's 2004 Beard decision when it granted the writ on the basis of Mills. We will not reverse. We will vacate the order granting the writ. The matter will be remanded. The District Court's determination that the guilt phase issues do not warrant habeas relief will be affirmed. Albrecht was arrested in January 1980 after the arson investigation was completed. The Commonwealth sought to prove that the fire was arson. That Albrecht was having an extramarital affair. Some of the abuse testimony was dramatic. She was kicked in the legs and she had bruises on her calf and he had banged her head against the refrigerator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/98-7190.htm">98-7190 -- CHOATE V. CHAMPION HOME BUILDERS CO. -- 07/25/2000<BR></A><BR> Or failure to warn that the hard wired smoke detector in Duane Choate's home would not work if there was a loss of power.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CB340BA134E0B81688256CBB005A9417/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: 1 At Slip Op. at 7. We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. LOCKYER 1119 three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Imposes significant restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. Id. § 12285(c).3 Approximately forty models of firearms are listed in the statute as subject to its restrictions. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/96a0025p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The Question Presented This is a direct criminal appeal by a convicted Tennessee state judge. Section 242 was adopted as a codification of prior law in 1874 during the period of Reconstruction in the aftermath of the Civil War. It criminalizes without any further definition the willful </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0018p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The ensuing litigation over which entities were responsible for what share of the considerable investigation and cleanup costs has traced an eight year oscillation through and between various levels of the federal court system. These adversaries have amassed a prodigious factual record. We have already comprehensively detailed many of the pertinent factual disputes elsewhere. A brief overview of the litigation is in order. Aroclor 1242 is the most prevalent PCB. The MDEQ and EPA determined that KRSG companies were responsible for the bulk of the Aroclor 1242 contamination at the NPL site. All four KRSG companies have not disputed that they are liable and responsible parties within the meaning of CERCLA. They have. KRSG alleged that these factory owners were partially responsible for the PCB contamination at the NPL site such that they owed KRSG contribution for the costs of the investigation and future clean up. The Allegan facility was in operation from the early 1900s until 1989. Did not resolve the more salient question of whether these PCBs actually found their way to the Kalamazoo River such that they contributed to the overall pollution for which KRSG was responsible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0207p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The city expressly permits the distribution of written materials to private residences if the literature </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210960.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There was no clearly established law sufficient to put Appellant on notice that his actions amounted to a violation of those rights. We find that the facts alleged in the complaint are not sufficient to state a claim for a substantive due process violation. BACKGROUND A denial of qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is an immediately appealable interlocutory order. 1367 (11th Cir. 1998). 2 The following is a brief summary of the relevant facts. A reviewing court's first task is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of a cognizable constitutional right. Our substantive due process doctrine is designed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/02-10960.opn.html">DACOSTA V. NWACHUKWA (7/18/2002, NO. 02-10960)<BR></A><BR> There was no clearly established law sufficient to put Appellant on notice that his actions amounted to a violation of those rights. We find that the facts alleged in the complaint are not sufficient to state a claim for a substantive due process violation. Hence reverse the district court. </SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/02-10960.opn.html">DACOSTA V. NWACHUKWA (7/18/2002, NO. 02-10960)<BR></A><BR> There was no clearly established law sufficient to put Appellant on notice that his actions amounted to a violation of those rights. We find that the facts alleged in the complaint are not sufficient to state a claim for a substantive due process violation. Hence reverse the district court. </SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/04-5350c.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Daniel J. Duff were on the brief for amici curiae John E. Edmonds was on the brief for amici curiae Emil Freireich and Stephen Strum in support of appellants. With him on the brief were Peter D. Turner was on the brief for amici curiae American Society of Clinical Oncology. Schultz was on the brief for amici curiae National Organization for Rare Disorders. Circuit Judge: This case presents the question whether the Constitution provides terminally ill patients a right of access to experimental drugs that have passed limited safety 3 trials but have not been proven safe and effective. The district court held there is no such right. A divided panel of this Court held there is. Because we conclude that there is no fundamental right </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/969007.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have considered each of Ferguson's contentions. We will affirm the district court's order. The court concluded </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/969007.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have considered each of Ferguson's contentions. We will affirm the district court's order. The court concluded </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were entitled to immunity from suit. We conclude Deputy Davis and the unnamed deputies are not entitled to qualified immunity for the warrantless arrest of Bashir in his home and reverse the judgment in that respect. Indicating her son might have gone there. Who were Bashir's two teenage sons. Told Jabari that he did not have to answer Ricks' questions and told Ricks he should talk with their mother.1 At various times during the exchange. Saleem Bashir was not yet home from work. He told the deputies his mother was coming out to talk to them and instructed Jabari to come inside the house. Akinsheye was much more belligerent. Jabari saw the struggle and jumped off the trunk of the car where he was seated. Once this was accomplished. Who was standing in the driveway. Told her she was also under arrest. Saleem Bashir arrived home from work at least 20 minutes after his wife was arrested. Asked Deputy Davis who was in charge. Who was not present for any of the arrests. Said Bashir was not allowed to speak with her. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/99-10225.man.html">ALEJANDRE V. TELEFONICA LARGA DISTANCIA DE PUERTO RICO (8/11/1999, NO. 99-10225)<BR></A><BR> Because we conclude that this company is an entity separate from the Cuban Government. Three citizens of the United States and one non citizen were killed in the attack. The court found that the defendants were not immune from the plaintiffs' suits because the Cuban Air Force (as an agent of the terrorist sponsoring Cuban Government) had committed an act of extrajudicial killing by shooting down the airplanes. <EM>See</EM> 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) (Supp. The court also concluded that the defendants were substantively liable to the plaintiffs. Each writ asked the garnishee to serve an answer stating whether it was indebted to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/022444P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Nor his cattle nor anything that is thy neighbor's. Above the inscription are two small tablets engraved with the Ten Commandments written in a Semitic script. Below it are two six point stars. Plattsmouth's briefs say it is Phoenician. It matters not which Semitic language is reproduced on the small tablets. This image is also referred to as the Egyptian </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0CFE7744A3DD584188256C7D00041477/$file/9936086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(a) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/99-10225.man.html">ALEJANDRE V. TELEFONICA LARGA DISTANCIA DE PUERTO RICO (8/11/1999, NO. 99-10225)<BR></A><BR> Because we conclude that this company is an entity separate from the Cuban Government. Three citizens of the United States and one non citizen were killed in the attack. The court found that the defendants were not immune from the plaintiffs' suits because the Cuban Air Force (as an agent of the terrorist sponsoring Cuban Government) had committed an act of extrajudicial killing by shooting down the airplanes. <EM>See</EM> 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) (Supp. The court also concluded that the defendants were substantively liable to the plaintiffs. Each writ asked the garnishee to serve an answer stating whether it was indebted to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/019009p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alternatively held that the claim was without merit. We will reverse the District Court's judgment and remand for issuance of the writ conditioned upon the Commonwealth's right to conduct a retrial. Who was wanted for sentencing on several drug related convictions and had become a suspect in the murder. Holloway was a middleman who supplied heroin to Baker. Johnson came to believe that Caldwell was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/002149P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 1 reject only those requests that were for plates that were obscene or profane. Contending that the plate that she requested was neither. The Missouri legislature amended the law to state that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/061035P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All of Advantage's applications were denied because each proposed billboard violated multiple provisions of the Eden Prairie Sign Code. Claiming that the sign code is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that its own constitutional rights were violated by the denial of its applications. Concluding that Advantage's overbreadth challenge to the sign code fails for lack of standing and that its own rights were not violated. I. Advantage is an outdoor advertising company. Each billboard was to contain trivision technology. The sign code's stated purpose is to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1648.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To defraud Milgray by purchasing components from a company named Microcomp that Gnat and Slupik had created and were operating in violation of their duty to their employer. The company may have been careless in failing to discover the bribes sooner. It may even have known about the bribes but not cared because it thought it was getting a good price and excellent service Nos. 03 1648. That is a matter of fierce dispute but Williams does admit being aware that some of its suppliers. Were giving gift certificates ranging from $25 to $500 to its employees at Christmas time. Provided that any gift in excess of $100 was disclosed to and approved by a company audit board. Except that buyers (such as Barry) were forbidden to accept any gift. The cash bribes received by Barry were not considered by either donor or recipient to be Christmas gifts. Commercial bribery is a garden variety of fraud. Here consisting of the suppliers' concealing from Williams the fact that they were bribing its buyer. He instructed the jury that if Williams had known or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="407"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/02-3015a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appointed 3 by the court for Samuel Carson at the time the brief was filed. Were on the joint brief. Assistant United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. I. Facts This case is a story of mayhem and disorder in and around the 200 block of K Street. Underlying the violence was appellants' organized and massive business of selling drugs. Some appellants also were convicted for numerous attempted murders. All appellants were convicted for a racketeering conspiracy. Appellant William Sweeney was incarcerated when some of these purchases took place. Crucial to the government's case was testimony from former associates of appellants and nearby residents testimony that was undoubtedly difficult to obtain given evidence. That some of the appellants have a history of murdering or attempting to murder potential witnesses against them. Not every detail is known about appellants' lengthy pattern of lawlessness that preceded their indictment in 1998. Our summary is by no means 5 exhaustive of all facts underlying that activity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="407"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2721.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murray</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="407"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/96-7239b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With him on the brief was Arthur B. Farris was on the brief for amicus curiae Home School Legal Defense Association. Holding that it violates the fundamental rights of minors and their parents and is unconstitutionally vague. Rehearing en banc was granted. Determining that juvenile crime and victimization in the District was a serious prob lem and growing worse unanimously adopted the Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995. The curfew contains eight </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0121p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tewksbury was working alone as the night clerk at the King Kwik convenience store at 9870 Pippin Road in Hamilton County. Monte was married and was the father of three children. Robert Shephard was driving northbound on Pippin Road. Monte was bleeding from his side. Went back to the telephone which was still off the hook. Monte was transported to a hospital. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/98-7156a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was R. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney Gener al at the time the briefs were filed. With him on the brief were Christopher Landau and Daryl Joseffer. With him on the brief were Seth M.M. If the person knew it was illegally intercepted. Is it part of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-7156a.html">BOEHNER, JOHN A. V. MCDERMOTT, JAMES A.<BR></A><BR> With </P> <P>him on the briefs was R. With him on </P> <P>the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney Gener </P> <P>al at the time the briefs were filed. With him </P> <P>on the brief were Christopher Landau and Daryl Joseffer.</P> <P> Theodore J. With him on </P> <P>the brief were Seth M.M. If the person knew it </P> <P>was illegally intercepted. Is it part of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/99-11736.man.html">MURPHY V. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. (4/20/2001, NO. 99-11736)<BR></A><BR> The district court determined Appellee was entitled to $300. The court determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to ERISA's attorney's fee provision. Appellant raises the following three issues: (1) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to benefits. (2) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. Determined that the respondents were entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees under the relevant statutes. The district court reasoned that the respondents' attorneys were retained on a contingent fee basis and that. The respondents would have faced substantial difficulties in obtaining suitable counsel. </EM> that an enhancement for contingency is not permitted under the fee shifting provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972319.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine whether an attorney who provided no defense at the guilt or penalty phase was ineffective in defending a young drug dealer. Who was an alcohol and drug abuser. When relief was denied in district court. We VACATE the denial of habeas relief as to the death sentence and REMAND to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine if petitioner is entitled to habeas relief because of ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase. Who was unemployed but a drug dealer and For factual completeness to address the issues on appeal in our independent review. We include facts from affidavits and expert reports that were exhibits at the 3.850 proceeding but were not part of the record before the district court. It was evident that we needed to review them. The exhibits were filed as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EA12EAE1E7DD7C488256D1600736A46/$file/9936086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and the attached opinion is ORDERED filed. The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(a) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982729P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (Barney) were convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 241 of conspiring to violate civil rights as a result of their involvement in a cross burning in Rushville. Dennis was also convicted of interfering with housing rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3631 and of using a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Mistakenly believing that the Costas were AfricanAmerican. The Costas are of Cape Verdean ancestry. Where the group was to meet and proceed to the Costa home. He was wearing a .22 caliber revolver in a shoulder holster. Approximately twenty people were present. Barney suggested to Dennis that it was not a good night for the cross burning because too many people knew of the plan. Dennis and Barney were indicted for conspiring to violate civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and for interfering with housing rights under 42 U.S.C. § 3631. Dennis was also indicted for using a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Dennis was convicted on all three counts and sentenced to 144 months' imprisonment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BE1F8F57805F49C88256E5A00707AC5/$file/9717062.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The pivotal question in this case is whether a city may. Between Tucson and recipients of Civic Events Fund support is such that Tucson was correct in concluding that the requested funding would have fallen on the Establishment Clause side of that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58163EA03D29E1D188256A1F005EB22E/$file/9717062.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The pivotal question in this case is whether a city may. Between Tucson and recipients of Civic Events Fund support is such that Tucson was correct in concluding that the requested funding would have fallen on the Establishment Clause side of that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/99-11736.man.html">MURPHY V. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. (4/20/2001, NO. 99-11736)<BR></A><BR> The district court determined Appellee was entitled to $300. The court determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to ERISA's attorney's fee provision. Appellant raises the following three issues: (1) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to benefits. (2) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. Determined that the respondents were entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees under the relevant statutes. The district court reasoned that the respondents' attorneys were retained on a contingent fee basis and that. The respondents would have faced substantial difficulties in obtaining suitable counsel. </EM> that an enhancement for contingency is not permitted under the fee shifting provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200316243.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: At issue today is whether a Florida county sheriff. Is an arm of the state entitled to the benefit of the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. We conclude that the sheriff is not an arm of the state in this case and. The record is unclear as to precisely what type of club Abusaid was operating. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/962487P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is not a state actor. This means that he is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ3MDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4706-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant counterclaimant appellee National Service Industries is not liable for the actions of Serv All Uniform Rental Corp. It has not established that there was a de facto merger. The question before us is whether federal common law for purposes of determining corporate successor liability under CERCLA incorporates state law ­ in this case. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2276.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Vernor Lee Norwood was charged in a two count indictment in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico with (1) conspiracy to (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He was sentenced to 63 months on each count. He contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the drug crimes. Was working for Wildcat Express. Although the driver said that he was not interested. That person was. Was Mr. Norwood to him as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1435p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm in part. I. Albert Lawrence was hired by Citizens First National Bank of New Jersey. In 1985 he was promoted to the position of Senior Vice President/Chief Investment Officer. Lawrence was injured in a car accident and sustained severe back injuries. Lawrence was terminated for sub standard performance and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1052.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Excerpts of which from time to time have occupied the attention of no fewer than ten federal and state judges across the nation. The CSRA issue is new to us and the FDCPA issue has not. Neither the propriety of the ceiling nor the Michigan court's treatment of the Georgia court's decree is at issue here. 3 CSRA. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CHILD SUPPORT RECOVERY ACT Bongiorno challenges his conviction principally on the ground that the CSRA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. Only $11.2 billion was paid. Where enforcement of support is particularly difficult. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3834.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The trial judge conducted a sentencing hearing and determined that Henderson was eligible for the death penalty because he was over 18 years old at the time of the murder and he had killed Boyd in the course of another felony. The judge then found that there were no mitigating factors and sentenced Henderson to death. Concluded that Henderson had failed to establish that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. 00 3778 3 sel was ineffective in failing to present medical evidence in support of his claim that he was physically coerced into confessing to the crimes. Henderson then cross appealed after receiving a certificate of appealability from this court on the other two issues mentioned above: (1) whether he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a sentencing jury since he was not informed that the jury must unanimously determine eligibility for the death sentence. (2) whether trial counsel denied Henderson effective assistance of counsel at the suppression hearing in failing to present corroborating medical testimony that his confession was coerced. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/024466pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a District Court order denying Curtis Brinson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Brinson was convicted in state court in Pennsylvania on one count of murder in the first degree and a lesser offense and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The District Court held ­ and we agree ­ that his federal habeas petition was timely because it was proper to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to the period of time following the District Court's erroneous dismissal of Brinson's prior habeas petition. Arthur Johnson was shot and killed in the bathroom of a Philadelphia nightclub. Was arrested for the crime. The party must point to facts that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-5154.htm">96-5154 -- SUITER V. MITCHELL MOTOR COACH SALES INC. -- 07/31/1998<BR></A><BR> If the transferor knows the odometer reading is not correct. A statement that the actual mileage is unknown. <em>See</em> 49 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-3714.man.html">JOHNSON V. DESOTO COUNTY BD. OF COMMISSIONERS (3/3/2000, NO. 98-3714)<BR></A><BR> <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May18/02-31068-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motion is GRANTED. The previous order of dismissal is withdrawn. The following opinion is entered in lieu thereof. The owner of the ship on which he was injured. Appellants removed to federal court on the grounds that their dispute with Dahiya was subject to an arbitration agreement governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411554.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is that the district court cannot order them to post such a bond. Their fall back position is that the court cannot do it without making a finding consistent with Christiansburg Garment Co. v. That the would be appeal is frivolous. In July 2002 Greer filed a new lawsuit alleging that he had been fired by New Process Steel after the original action was filed and that the firing was retaliatory. The new lawsuit was consolidated with the original one. Which was granted on motion of the defendant. Which was apparently made as a result of some comments by the plaintiffs or their attorneys to the jurors. 3 Thereafter. On Greer's own motion his retaliation claim was dismissed. The defendant sought to have the bond cover its anticipated appellate attorney's fees as well as the other costs it would incur as a result of the appeal. The motion was accompanied by affidavits estimating the amount of those attorney's fees. 000 of that amount was to cover the attorney's fees the defendant estimated it would incur in the appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/967539.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Published opinion filed 1/20/99 is vacated. Line 5 the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911736.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision is rendered by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). ** * FILED U.S. The district court determined Appellee was entitled to $300. The court determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to ERISA's attorney's fee provision. Appellant raises the following three issues: (1) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to benefits. (2) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. Determined that the respondents were entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees under the 3 relevant statutes. The district court reasoned that the respondents' attorneys were retained on a contingent fee basis and that. The respondents would have faced substantial difficulties in obtaining suitable counsel. That an enhancement for contingency is not permitted under the fee shifting provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The Court noted that the fee shifting language in the Clean Water Act and Solid Waste Disposal Act </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911736.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined Appellee was entitled to $300. The court determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to ERISA's attorney's fee provision. Appellant raises the following three issues: (1) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to benefits. (2) whether the district court properly determined Appellee was entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. This decision is rendered by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) provides in relevant part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3022.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He contends that the prosecution was in retaliation for his publication of a political (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Was not acting </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0DA35F672F37EB9288257036004D3C75/$file/0415155.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which rates are set by a state utilities commission pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Is ripe for judicial review. Even though such rates are subject to later adjustment by the state utilities commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before us en banc upon remand from the United States Supreme Court. Believing that it will be helpful in analyzing the issues presented. At issue were the so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4CF0C80C879FF1E388256E6E0059CE0C/$file/0217047.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 4288 KRYSTAL ENERGY CO. v. Assuming </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/870518214FB0104888256E35007B83BD/$file/0217047.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether Congress has abrogated the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes by statute is a question of statutory interpretation and is reviewed de novo. 890 (1986) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/953CA73EC0D14D2B88256C4C007B52E4/$file/0116799.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Arizona's 1989 version of the statute was first held unconstitutional by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in 1992. The court enjoined enforcement of the statute on the grounds that the medical procedure provision was unconstitutionally vague. The definition of medical emergency was unconstitutionally narrow. The court held that two provisions were unconstitutionally vague: the requirement that a request for judicial authorization for abortion without parental consent be determined </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511924.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O'Keefe required visitors to identify themselves and submit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is constitutional as enacted by the Florida legislature and as subsequently enforced. Florida courts have defined the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-3714.man.html">JOHNSON V. DESOTO COUNTY BD. OF COMMISSIONERS (3/3/2000, NO. 98-3714)<BR></A><BR> <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/024466p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a District Court order denying Curtis Brinson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Brinson was convicted in state court in Pennsylvania on one count of murder in the first degree and a lesser offense and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The District Court held ­ and we agree ­ that his federal habeas petition was timely because it was proper to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to the period of time following the District Court's erroneous dismissal of Brinson's prior habeas petition. Arthur Johnson was shot and killed in the bathroom of a Philadelphia nightclub. Was arrested for the crime. The party must point to facts that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/033841P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After Palmer's second conviction was reversed. Cherie Palmer was permitted to testify against Palmer in his third trial. Palmer was again convicted and again sentenced to death. Contending that his second trial violated his right against double jeopardy and that his impending third trial would also constitute a double jeopardy violation because the properly admitted evidence in both his first and second trials was legally insufficient to convict him. The privilege had been inapplicable only in cases where the crime charged was rape. A. Substantive Review of State Court Decisions Our power to review underlying state court decisions in habeas corpus cases is restricted to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0875p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated interlocutory cross appeals before us pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1993) present an interesting and important question of maritime law: whether state wrongful death and survival statutes are displaced by a federal maritime rule of decision concerning the remedies available for the death of a recreational boater occurring within state territorial waters. [fn1] which are explicitly excluded from the reach of the Death on the High Seas Act. The remedies at issue are loss of society. Was killed in a boating accident in the waters off Puerto Rico. Fashioned a federal common law rule applicable to cases involving the death of a non seaman in territorial waters under which future earnings and punitive damages are not recoverable but damages for loss of society or support are. Each party sought certification to appeal the portion of the court's ruling that was unfavorable. Our analysis of the Supreme Court's maritime wrongful death jurisprudence reveals that there is no federal substantive policy with which state wrongful death or survival statutes conflict here. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2041.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Lenehan & Iacopino were on consolidated brief. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This appeal arises out of unpardonable misconduct committed by a federal prosecutor who should have known better. Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured financial institution is memorialized in a recent opinion of this court. The facts pertaining to the misconduct are recounted in the opinion below. The prosecutors who controlled the case 2 were members of the Justice Department's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/04-5350a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O:\Slip\WP\2005\04 5350 Abigail Alliancea28a.odl.wpd
351 HILL V. JONES

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Hill v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> A. <i>The Crime</i><p> <p> Walter Hill was convicted and sentenced to death for the January 1977 murders of Willie Mae Hammock. Was the brother of Lois Tatum. Was often present at the house while patrons. Were gambling and drinking.<p> Hill apparently developed a romantic interest in Toni and quarreled with Ms. Hill was referring to Toni's 16 year old brother Robert.<p> Hill and Toni drove to another house to get Robert. Threatened to jump from the car when Hill was evasive about their destination. Hill told Nunnery that he was a fugitive from Alabama who had just killed three people and would kill again. Hill was arrested in the disabled car on the side of the road. Hill was 45 years old and had spent most of his adult life incarcerated. Hill was convicted of second degree murder in an Alabama state court and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. He was released from custody in 1960. A year later was convicted in federal court in Alabama of kidnapping and interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/97-9174.man.html">R. MAYER OF ATLANTA, INC. V. CITY OF ATLANTA (10/23/1998, NO. 97-9174)<BR></A><BR> The municipal ordinance is valid. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/97-9174.man.html">R. MAYER OF ATLANTA, INC. V. CITY OF ATLANTA (10/23/1998, NO. 97-9174)<BR></A><BR> The municipal ordinance is valid. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117133ord2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. The United States Supreme Court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/987002.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Published opinion filed 12/2/99 is vacated Filed: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98 7002 (CA 97 232 5 H) January 4. Line 3 of second indented quotation the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-6793.man.html">HILL V. JONES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hill v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> A. <i>The Crime</i><p> <p> Walter Hill was convicted and sentenced to death for the January 1977 murders of Willie Mae Hammock. Was the brother of Lois Tatum. Was often present at the house while patrons. Were gambling and drinking.<p> Hill apparently developed a romantic interest in Toni and quarreled with Ms. Hill was referring to Toni's 16 year old brother Robert.<p> Hill and Toni drove to another house to get Robert. Threatened to jump from the car when Hill was evasive about their destination. Hill told Nunnery that he was a fugitive from Alabama who had just killed three people and would kill again. Hill was arrested in the disabled car on the side of the road. Hill was 45 years old and had spent most of his adult life incarcerated. Hill was convicted of second degree murder in an Alabama state court and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. He was released from custody in 1960. A year later was convicted in federal court in Alabama of kidnapping and interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/923359P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide whether an American Indian Tribal Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a tort case which arose out of an automobile accident which occurred between two non Indian parties on an Indian reservation. We now hold that the tribal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. Fredericks suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized for 24 days. A 1 is a non tribal company located in Dickinson. Stockert is not a member of the tribe and resides in Dickinson. Fredericks is not a member of the tribe. She was married to a tribal member (now deceased). Her adult children are enrolled members of the tribe. A 1 was working on the reservation under a subcontract agreement with LCM Corporation. The record is not clear whether Stockert was engaged in work under the contract at the time of the accident.1 There is no proof (as opposed to allegations) that we can find in the record to support the district court's finding of fact that A 1 was in performance of the contract at the time of the accident. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/94-3428.wpd.html">KAUL V. STEPHAN<BR></A><BR> After learning that the Kansas Department of Revenue believed Kaul was violating state taxation laws. When the investigation revealed that Kaul did not have a valid sales tax identification number. Even if Stephan's actions were unconstitutional. He was shielded by qualified immunity. Which is located within the Prairie Band Potawatomi Indian Reservation in Jackson County. She alleged that she was exempt from sales tax because her store would operate on an Indian Reservation. The Department of Revenue did not issue Kaul a sales tax identification number because the department's policy at the time was that retailers operating on Indian reservations were exempt from the requirement of collecting and remitting Kansas retailers' sales tax. Such an exemption was not enumerated in the Kansas Retailers' Sales Tax Act. The rev enue department officials told Stephan that they believed Kaul was in violation of Kansas tax statutes and subject to prosecution under Kansas' criminal tax statutes. Nor did they tell Stephan that Kaul had applied for a tax identification number and that no number was issued because the department considered her exempt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/98-5133a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Peter H. With him on the brief was William H. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Dunn was on the notice of joinder in brief for appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The Regents of the University of Minnesota. Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the False Claims Act. We hold that they are not. I. Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the New York State Department of Education. Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the United States. Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992. Was a sweetheart deal that was but another instance of the state's conspiracy with SCS to conceal and perpetuate SCS' fraud a conspiracy that he alleges continued until SCS filed for bankruptcy in 1995. New York ignored evidence of SCS' continuing fraud and falsely represented to the United States that SCS' fraud had ceased and that it was actively monitoring SCS. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D4D127794750EEF288256C050053AFED/$file/0017355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At slip op. 8609. Is DENIED. Circuit Judge: We hold that an unincorporated Indian tribe such as appellee is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug95/94-4403.man.html">TAMIAMI PARTNERS V. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Tamiami Partners v. The officers of these tribal entities who are responsible for overseeing the gaming operation (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412758.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the City of Neptune Beach's sign code. I. Solantic is a business operating emergency medical care facilities in various locations. A videotape showing the sign was viewed by the district court and is part of the record. Solantic states that the EVMC sign </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug95/94-4403.man.html">TAMIAMI PARTNERS V. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Tamiami Partners v. The officers of these tribal entities who are responsible for overseeing the gaming operation (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/92-4539.man.html">LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lambrix v. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY<p> <p> Cary Michael Lambrix was indicted on two counts of first degree murder in connection with the 1983 killings of Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/999005.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thus that our analysis and resolution of Banks's Mills claims was proper. We will endorse the reasoning set forth in the remainder of our prior opinion. I. George Banks was sentenced to death for the murder of thirteen people in Wilkes Barre. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on direct appeal. Which was denied in August of 1999. Finding meritorious Banks's argument that his death sentence was unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court reversed a death sentence where there was a substantial probability that a reasonable jury could have understood the sentencing instructions and forms to disallow the consideration of mitigating factors not unanimously found to exist. A reasonable possibility existed that the jurors believed they were precluded from considering mitigating evidence they had not found unanimously. We were presented with the question of whether Mills was applicable for purposes of our collateral review of Banks's conviction and sentence under 3 Teague v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0320p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tiffany Skiba was stabbed to death on November 8. That recommendation was adopted by the trial judge. GRANT Frazier a conditional writ of habeas corpus that will result in the vacation of his death sentence unless the state of Ohio No. 01 3122 Frazier v. Bednarski discovered that Skiba was pregnant. Both women believed that Skiba's pregnancy was the result of sexual abuse by Frazier. Frazier was indicted in state court on two counts of rape and two counts involving other sex crimes. Dates for the blood test and the trial were then set by the state criminal court. Skiba was terrified of Frazier. She was visibly disturbed any time that she was in his presence. Skiba confided in one friend her fear that Frazier was going to kill her. His dog was barking and looking excitedly at the back door. Robert Skiba was met with the ghastly sight of his granddaughter's corpse lying in bed. The knife was part of a set belonging to her grandparents. There was blood on the knife. Although it was normally kept closed. The door leading from the basement into the rest of the house was open. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9904F29C1DB06C8D88256CC200597B9C/$file/0015734.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Polk County held that when an assistant public defender is performing the traditional role of an attorney for a client. The lawyer is not a state actor. The plaintiff in this case is Roberto Hernandez Miranda. He was convicted of capital murder and served fourteen years in prison until a Nevada state court overturned his conviction in collateral review proceedings. The Nevada court held that he was not provided effective assistance of counsel because the assistant public defender failed to investigate the case. The complaint alleges Rigsby's representation of Miranda was doomed to failure because of two policies promulgated by Harris as the head of the Office of Public Defender. The first was a policy of administering a lie detector test to all defendants and allocating minimal resources for preparation of defense to those clients who appear guilty because they failed the polygraph. The second policy was to assign the least experienced lawyers on the staff to capital cases without training or experience in the special demands of such cases. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0186p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was filed in 1968. The facts and lengthy history of this litigation have been set forth in the prior opinions of this Court and the district court. Faculty members were allowed to intervene ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0268p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Williams's appeal is now before the court. After receiving word via walkie talkie that the situation was secure. Who were roommates. Jessica answered the door and told Wynn that Madison was not home and Howard was asleep. Went back in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4258_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jenkins was an employee of Mid America. Mid America was the plan administrator and Mr. Yager was the plan trustee. The plan was prepared by RSM McGladrey. Was reviewed by Mid America's attorneys. That amount then is divided among the participants. Defendants assert that Erskine was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1113p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This asbestos related personal injury action was tried to a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We are called on to determine whether: (1) the district court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's challenge for cause of two jurors who allegedly evidenced bias against the defense. (2) the defendant has waived any claim that there was a violation of its statutory right to exercise peremptory challenges. (3) a denial or impairment of the exercise of peremptory challenges occurs if the defendant uses one or more challenges to remove jurors who should have been removed for cause. (4) a per se reversal is the appropriate remedy for such impairment or whether the defendant must also make a showing of prejudice. We are called upon to determine whether the district court committed an error of law by: (1) allowing plaintiff to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of an out of court expert witness from an unrelated state court action. We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages and liability.[fn1] Since it is likely that the hearsay issues and the issue of delay damages may arise again during the new trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/976014P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Bankruptcy Judge Eugene Chamberlain ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2326.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Most people are in favor of programs that help drug addicts shake their addictions. Some fear (whether the fear is rational or not is another question). Will bring hoards of drug addicts. Many of whom are embroiled in the criminal justice system. To the addicts who are trying to free themselves from the grip of another. Today's case is about the drug treatment business and a million 2 No. 02 2326 dollar judgment against Indiana's capital city in a dispute that started as a zoning squabble. Inc. is a for profit corporation that operates drug addiction rehabilitation programs. It was told by an employee of the Department of Metropolitan Development that zoning regulations would allow a facility in the site it had chosen. That decision was later challenged by persons opposed to the facility. That the Discovery House facility was not a permitted use for the area. Which was zoned for doctor's offices and hospitals. Which overturned the decision holding that a methadone treatment center was a permitted use under the zoning laws at the requested location. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/964108P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Starr is to investigate and prosecute matters </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1998/98a1978p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is served by privately owned well water. Alleging that the mandatory connection requirement is unconstitutional. Because it is beyond the powers of a municipality. Finding that there was a rational basis for the ordinances. Within 90 days after a BTMUA water supply line is made available. The 3 charges will be a lien on the owner's property until they are paid. Both the Sterns and the trust received notice that BTMUA was to provide their properties with connection to the municipal water supply. A lien was imposed on the trust property. The defendants are BTMUA. S 241 claim because there is no private cause of action under the criminal statute. Although the issue was not raised by the parties. All claims against the magistrate judge would have to be dismissed in any event on the grounds of judicial immunity. 4 OAB. Violates the United States Constitution because their well water is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/92-4539.man.html">LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lambrix v. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY<p> <p> Cary Michael Lambrix was indicted on two counts of first degree murder in connection with the 1983 killings of Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5133a.html">USA/LONG RONALD E. V. STATE OF NEW YORK<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant/cross appellee.<p> With him on the briefs was <i>Peter H. With him on the brief was <i>William H. With him on the briefs were <i>Frank W. <p> Hunger</i>. Dunn</i> was on the notice of joinder in brief for <p> appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg</i> was on the brief for <i>amicus curiae</i> The <p> Regents of the University of Minnesota.<p> <p> Before: Wald. <i>Circuit Judge</i>: The question presented in this <p> appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the <p> False Claims Act. We hold that they are <p> not.<p> <p> <p> <b>I.</b> <p> <p> Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and <p> Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the <p> New York State Department of Education. The Bureau's funding depended in substantial part on <p> tuition assessments and fines that SCS paid to the Bureau. <p> Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of <p> the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the <p> United States. Frey and <p> other state officials took actions to limit and subvert his <p> investigation.<p> <p> Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021494.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion filed 8/1/03 is vacated Filed: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02 1494 (CA 00 582 3) August 18. Line 2 of section III the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/9904f29c1db06c8d88256cc200597b9c/$FILE/0015734.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Polk County held that when an assistant public defender is performing the traditional role of an attorney for a client. The lawyer is not a state actor. The plaintiff in this case is Roberto Hernandez Miranda. He was convicted of capital murder and served fourteen years in prison until a Nevada state court overturned his conviction in collateral review proceedings. The Nevada court held that he was not provided effective assistance of counsel because the assistant public defender failed to investigate the case. The complaint alleges Rigsby's representation of Miranda was doomed to failure because of two policies promulgated by Harris as the head of the Office of Public Defender. The first was a policy of administering a lie detector test to all defendants and allocating minimal resources for preparation of defense to those clients who appear guilty because they failed the polygraph. The second policy was to assign the least experienced lawyers on the staff to capital cases without training or experience in the special demands of such cases. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D840671383736FD388256BD700817DFF/$file/0017355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We hold that an unincorporated Indian tribe such as appellee is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-2354.man.html">BISCHOFF V. OSCEOLA COUNTY (8/14/2000, NO. 99-2354)<BR></A><BR> May dismiss a complaint determining that the Plaintiffs lack standing simply by making a credibility determination based on the contents of squarely conflicting affidavits </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/99-2354.opn.html">CHERYL BISCHOFF, VICKY STITES V. OSCEOLA COUNTY (8/14/2000, NO. 99-2354)<BR></A><BR> May dismiss a complaint determining that the Plaintiffs lack standing simply by making a credibility determination based on the contents of squarely conflicting affidavits <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-2354.man.html">BISCHOFF V. OSCEOLA COUNTY (8/14/2000, NO. 99-2354)<BR></A><BR> May dismiss a complaint determining that the Plaintiffs lack standing simply by making a credibility determination based on the contents of squarely conflicting affidavits </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/021845P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to be executed. His motion for state post conviction relief filed pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 was overruled. Were affirmed in a consolidated appeal taken to the Missouri Supreme Court. Made by the prosecutor in his closing statement when he was speaking of conversations Brown had with his wife. Is the story that he told Kathy Moore strange and other worldly? Is the story that he told the police strange and other worldly? This is a strange. You have heard uncontested testimony from Ms. The point I'm trying to make is not that his statement about Janet Perkins is necessarily ­ that his statement about the murder of Janet Perkins is evidence of his guilt in this case. It is not. It is a strange. That both of the strange stories he told to his wife and to the police on videotape are consistent with a very. As Brown suggests it should have. His Rule 29.15 counsel did not properly present a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's remark. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/99-2354.opn.html">CHERYL BISCHOFF, VICKY STITES V. OSCEOLA COUNTY (8/14/2000, NO. 99-2354)<BR></A><BR> May dismiss a complaint determining that the Plaintiffs lack standing simply by making a credibility determination based on the contents of squarely conflicting affidavits <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/95-6776.man.html">BALDWIN V. JOHNSON (9/1/1998, NO. 95-6776)<BR></A><BR> Convicted Baldwin of the capital felony of robbery during which the victim was intentionally killed. Baldwin contended that the State of Alabama did not have jurisdiction to try him where the charged offense. (1) whether Baldwin's confessions were knowingly and voluntarily made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/95-3201.man.html">HALE CONTAINER LINE, INC. V. HOUSTON SEA PACKING CO. (4/3/1998, NO. 95-3201)<BR></A><BR> </EM> and the amount of damages it was awarded against Hale. </P> <P><CENTER>I. Owner shall have the option of terminating this agreement and Charterer shall forthwith surrender possession of said vessel to Charterer. Owner shall have a lien on all cargoes and subfreights for all charter payments and general averages.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/95-6776.man.html">BALDWIN V. JOHNSON (9/1/1998, NO. 95-6776)<BR></A><BR> Convicted Baldwin of the capital felony of robbery during which the victim was intentionally killed. Baldwin contended that the State of Alabama did not have jurisdiction to try him where the charged offense. (1) whether Baldwin's confessions were knowingly and voluntarily made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/95-3201.man.html">HALE CONTAINER LINE, INC. V. HOUSTON SEA PACKING CO. (4/3/1998, NO. 95-3201)<BR></A><BR> </EM> and the amount of damages it was awarded against Hale. </P> <P><CENTER>I. Owner shall have the option of terminating this agreement and Charterer shall forthwith surrender possession of said vessel to Charterer. Owner shall have a lien on all cargoes and subfreights for all charter payments and general averages.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/00-6204.htm">00-6204 -- HAWKINS V. MULLIN -- 05/22/2002<BR></A><BR> Which is not a specifically enumerated felony supporting a first degree murder conviction under Oklahoma law. We hold that the Oklahoma appellate court's interpretation was not unforeseeable and therefore did not deprive Hawkins of due process. Were also in the car at the time. His original plan was to kidnap Thompson and hold her for ransom. Were staying with the couple at that time. <p> At the house. 2) Thompson's murder was especially heinous. Hawkins is a continuing threat to society. Hawkins will be entitled to habeas relief only if he can establish that the state courts' resolution of his claims was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042849p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The survey itself was designed to be voluntary and anonymous. Survey results were designed to be and actually were released only in the aggregate with no identifying information. We will affirm. The Parties Plaintiffs are Carol Nunn. We will refer to the student Plaintiffs as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413065.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have determined that GAIC. Rigel Ships Agencies ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/032257p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant Richard Conoshenti alleges that his employment with Public Service Electric and Gas Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200701/04-1148a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were James Bradford Ramsay. With him on the brief were S. With her on the brief were Robert H. With her on the briefs were Neil L. FERC's solution in Order No. 888 was to require transmission providers. Which typically have a natural monopoly. Here we review claims advanced by two sets of petitioners (the two sets are generally aligned with each other in their positions): four utilities ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982035.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was general manager (GM) of HRC. Argues that she created a genuine issue of material fact on her Title VII claim when she put forth evidence that demonstrated that some of her superiors on the HRC Board of Trustees (Board) favored her termination because they lamented the loss of a particular greens superintendent who had publicly stated that he was not pleased to work for a woman. She alleges that the district court based its summary judgment ruling on an affirmative defense that was improperly raised. Because we determine that summary judgment was appropriate. Are expressed in the light most favorable to her as the nonmoving party. 255 (1986) (stating that an appellate court reviewing a grant of summary judgment is required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non moving party and must draw all reasonable inferences therefrom). Brinkley was promoted to the position of GM of HRC. Board members asked the staff whether anyone would have difficulty working with Brinkley in that capacity. Where she was the owner/manager/treasurer of a restaurant in Salisbury from 1976 1989 and reported a salary of $30. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/039.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IV and announcing the judgment in part V: Petitioner appellant Jeffrey Clayton Kandies was sentenced to death after being found guilty by a North Carolina jury of the firstdegree rape and first degree murder of Natalie Lynn Osborne. We subsequently issued Kandies a certificate of appealability for his claims that (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the penalty phase by failing to investigate whether he was sexually abused as a child and (2) the North Carolina Supreme Court erred by concluding that the State's use of peremptory challenges to strike prospective African American jurors was not violative of the Supreme Court's holding in Batson v. Who is a Caucasian American. Who was his fiancee KANDIES v. Which is around the same time that Ms. Who noticed that Kandies's hand was beginning to swell. Suggested that Kandies have his hand examined by a medical technician that happened to be inside the store. Declined to have the medical technician examine his hand and immediately left the store. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022130.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Our discussion of the facts giving rise to the underlying lawsuit will be abridged. Because his wife was suffering through a difficult pregnancy and was due to deliver in December 1994. Starting when the baby was born. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1951.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are essentially undisputed. Steve Wentland were drinking at Moore's house. Who was seated in the front. Who was driving. After Wentland was down. Where they awoke Conner's employer and were given access to a warehouse. He was apprehended in Texas on No. 03 1951 3 January 30. The penalty phase hearing was held on October 9. Including that his confession was improperly admitted because it was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Which under Indiana law is a remedy limited to issues not known at trial or not available on direct appeal. Including: (1) his confession was obtained through manipulation. Was therefore improperly admitted at trial. (3) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. Legal Standards A federal court may grant habeas relief only if the petitioner demonstrates that he is in custody </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4516_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brought suit against her employer under Title VII's hostile work environment doctrine and § 1983 after she was raped by John Spicer. Is housed in the same building as WCCS. Crabb) denied WDC's Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law after concluding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5099.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Pullum (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0342p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The LPO's first claim is that Ohio's policy mandating strict compliance with election laws violates the Constitution. We do not have jurisdiction to address it. Which is not moot. Is that the combination of two Ohio election regulations ­ the requirement that all political parties nominate their candidates via primary election and the requirement that all minor political parties file a petition with the Secretary 120 days in advance of the primary ­ imposes an unconstitutional burden on its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of free association. As the regulations are not narrowly tailored and do not advance a compelling state interest. States have pushed back the dates of their primary elections to the beginning of the primary election cycle. The issue in this case is whether the move to accommodate the major parties has placed an impermissible burden on the constitutional rights of minor parties. Primaries are held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. When the primaries are held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-1504.htm">96-1504 -- MAY V. TOWN OF MOUNTAIN VILLAGE -- 12/19/1997<BR></A><BR> The District Court found that the provision allowing nonresidents to vote was not irrational or arbitrary. Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants on all federal law claims. Plaintiffs based their claim of the unconstitutionality of the Charter upon five arguments that is i) that the Equal Protection Clause bars nonresident landowner voting. Finding that questions involving districting and various amendments to the Charter were moot or not ripe for judgment. The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and those issues are not before us.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/97-1304.htm">97-1304 -- ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS INC. V. SLATER -- 09/25/2000<BR></A><BR> We are just one race here. It is American. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/00-1423.htm">00-1423 -- SAVE PALISADE FRUITLANDS V. TODD -- 02/07/2002<BR></A><BR> The United States District Court for the District of Colorado concluded that there was no denial of equal protection. Subsection 1(2) of the Colorado Constitution provides in part that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-1275a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was William Kanter. On the brief were David M. Kirsch were on the brief for intervenor. The Air Force argues that the conduct of the union official is unprotected under the applica ble federal labor laws. Because we agree with the Air Force that the conduct of the union official is unprotected under any reasonable standard. Fallaw advised that this session was not going to be a disciplinary action and therefore Egal would not be allowed to attend the meeting. Egal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/99-1502a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Eric R. With her on the brief was Lois J. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 is now more than ten years old. The Coast Guard admits that it will not under take any rulemaking in the future. The Coast Guard's earlier temporary compliance standards are of no moment. Is that the agency's failure to pursue rulemaking once the temporary regulations expired was a blatant violation of the statute. The Coast Guard asserts that petitioners should have brought their mandamus claims re garding regulation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/061001P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A motion for a new trial ­ all of which were denied by the district court1 in a comprehensive memorandum opinion. Was the central witness in a drug case against Honken. Who were both drug dealers in Mason City. Who was his girlfriend at the time. Johnson told Honken that because DeGeus was using too much of the methamphetamine for his own The Honorable Mark W. We will not revisit the issue here. 22 1 personal use. Which was monitored by police. A receipt for the purchase of chemicals was found in Cutkomp's pocket. After Honken was arrested. Honken was released on bond. A plea hearing was scheduled for July 30. Johnson purchased a semi automatic 9 mm assault pistol at a pawn shop about 3 an hour's drive from her home.3 The last time Johnson asked Gaubatz to babysit so that she and Honken could look for Nicholson was July 24. Were murdered. The following recitation is drawn from these accounts. Johnson was carrying a cosmetics demonstration bag and claimed that she had an appointment to give a demonstration. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1944.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Lacouture and Peabody & Brown were on brief for the Narragansett Electric Company. Jefferson Melish was on brief for the Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island and the Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Housing Authority. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-2117.wpd.html">BENAVIDEZ V. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs were City of Albuquerque employees. They claim they were unreasonably subjected to urinalysis drug testing in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Smith was Mr. Plaintiffs did not know that Albuquerque police were already at the house. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb98/92-2872.amd.html">UNITED STATES V. ADKINSON (2/23/1998, NO. 92-2872)<BR></A><BR> All convictions and sentences WILL BE REVERSED AND VACATED.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-14413.opn.html">ATLANTA JOURNAL V. CITY OF ATLANTA DEP'T OF AVIATION (1/4/2002, NO. 00-14413)<BR></A><BR> This appeal followed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002543.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 HUNTER v. Was suspended from practice in the Western District of North Carolina for five years. Campbell Taggart Company were all defendants in the First Lawsuit. Campbell Taggart was at one time a wholly owned subsidiary of Anheuser Busch. (2) that the workers there were more skilled. (3) that the hourly wage workforce at the Charlotte bakery was predominantly African American. While the workforce at other Earthgrains bakeries was predominantly white. (4) that Earthgrains management had represented to its Charlotte employees that the Charlotte bakery was profitable and would remain open after a corporate spinoff. That it was nonetheless closed. That its Charlotte employees were bound to arbitrate their Title VII claims under their collective bargaining agreement (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/99-13688.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ALLEN-BROWN (3/9/2001, NO. 99-13688)<BR></A><BR> Does not apply in this case or that it was applied in an erroneous manner by the trial court. Who was black. Who was white. Ten were white. Uncalled in the venire were ten white and eight black prospective jurors. R58 at 53 57.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/99-12813.op3.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/26/2001, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge: </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1529.html">W.G. YATES & SONS CONSTRUCTION V. CALDERA, LOUIS<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>David M. This section also contained the two provisions that are at issue before us paragraphs 1.4.B Qualifications and 1.4.C Standard of Quality:</P><DIR> <DIR> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981962.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was a secretary at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for a short time in 1972. During several public appearances and on a world wide web site Liddy stated that the burglars' objective during the Watergate break in was to determine whether the Democrats possessed information embarrassing to John Dean.1 More specifically. Liddy asserted that the burglars were seeking a compromising photograph of Dean's fiance that was located in Wells's desk among several photographs that were used to offer prostitution services to outof town guests. The district court determined that Wells was an involuntary public figure who could not prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Because we determine that Wells is not a public figure for purposes of the ongoing public debate regarding Watergate and we also conclude that Louisiana law does not apply to two of Wells's defamation counts. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 John Dean was legal counsel to President Richard M. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb98/92-2872.amd.html">UNITED STATES V. ADKINSON (2/23/1998, NO. 92-2872)<BR></A><BR> All convictions and sentences WILL BE REVERSED AND VACATED.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/052165P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of drug and firearm offenses. One forfeiture count and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Arguing that his motions to suppress evidence should have been granted. That there was insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions for conspiracy and attempted obstruction of justice. Holding that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence found when the warrant was executed. The government's petition for rehearing en banc was granted and the panel opinion vacated. He absconded after he was placed on work release. Received a report from Crime Stoppers that Tylan Lucas was staying at 2316 Ogden Street apartment 1 in North Omaha. That address was for a unit on the first floor of a house converted into apartments. They had learned that the tenant in apartment 1 was Theresa Scaife. On their arrival a man and woman were heard speaking inside. The police asked whether Lucas was in the apartment. She denied that he was. The officers told her they believed he was inside and wanted to look for him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971723.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree that the ordinance is constitutional and affirm the judgment of the district court. Minors may participate in any activity during curfew hours if they are accompanied by a parent. The ordinance exempts minors who are engaged in interstate travel. Are on the sidewalk abutting their parents' residence. Or are involved in an emergency. The ordinance does not affect minors who are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-14413.opn.html">ATLANTA JOURNAL V. CITY OF ATLANTA DEP'T OF AVIATION (1/4/2002, NO. 00-14413)<BR></A><BR> This appeal followed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942330.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The primary issue before this court is whether the drainage ditch into which appellants' company discharged industrial wastewater was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/99-13688.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ALLEN-BROWN (3/9/2001, NO. 99-13688)<BR></A><BR> Does not apply in this case or that it was applied in an erroneous manner by the trial court. Who was black. Who was white. Ten were white. Uncalled in the venire were ten white and eight black prospective jurors. R58 at 53 57.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5114.html">B & G ENTERPRISES, LTD V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>John M. With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel was <u>Katherine M. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Karen Wagner</u>. Of counsel was <u>Patricia Kaeding</u>. Ha[ve] in effect a law providing that it is unlawful for any manufacturer. HHS was instructed to reduce that state </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/99-12813.op3.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/26/2001, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge: </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031108.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Dealers are CLM Equipment Company. Are Volvo Construction Equipment North America. Champion Road Machinery Limited ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/025A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Announcing the judgment of the court: Timothy Lanier Allen was convicted of first degree murder in a North Carolina court and sentenced to death. Allen contends (1) that the short form indictment used by the State was unconstitutional. Jail records that indicated Allen was receiving daily doses of anti withdrawal medication. Was in fact not harmless error. Were violated during jury selection in his State trial and that a Batson hearing should be held. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the North Carolina trial court's instructions on unanimity given to the jury during the sentencing phase was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0385p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff's complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants wrongfully terminated her at will employment with the county because of her intimate association with one Steve Milam. Defendants responded that Plaintiff's relationship was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C84F396001F211588256F080056BF3B/$file/0199008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is reported as Leavitt v. We will put page references to the published opinion in parenthesis. 1 LEAVITT v. As is well known by now. The Supreme Court determined that a capital sentencing scheme wherein the judge decides aggravating facts without a jury is unconstitutional. Leavitt asserts that Ring is retroactive to cases on habeas corpus review. Substitute the following in its place: CONCLUSION Leavitt is not entitled to habeas corpus relief as far as his conviction and the sentencing issues disposed of in this opinion are concerned. He is entitled to have the district court consider his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at his second sentencing hearing. Arave's petition for rehearing is DENIED. Leavitt's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is also DENIED. Was viciously LEAVITT v. The relentless and merciless assault took place on her waterbed and with such implacable force that the bed itself was punctured and torn. She was also stabbed multiple times: One thrust caused the knife to enter her right lung. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/991613.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants are the District. Detective Hahn were entitled to qualified immunity. She was a leader in a local chapter of a group known as Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity. That she felt it was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1275a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0544n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were he not Romeo call'd. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/012603.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court erred in finding that the government's decision to exercise a peremptory challenge to a juror was not motivated by discriminatory intent. Believes that the judgment should be reversed to the extent that it imposed the sentence and thus is filing a separate opinion dissenting from the affirmance of the sentence. B. Milan's Crimes as a Public Official Milan was elected a member of the Camden city council on November 7. Was elected its president on January 1. Milan was elected mayor of Camden. A position to which he was sworn in on July 1. A government certified minority owned business enterprise which was to compete for government contracts on Natale's behalf. Milan arranged to have the title of a 1990 Chevrolet Lumina Van transferred to his fiance from Nick's Towing. As in the other instances we have recounted with respect to improper benefits. The owner of the Camden office building in which Milan's mayoral campaign headquarters was located. To draft a fake lease to demonstrate that monthly lease payments were due from Milan's campaign 7 even though Milan's campaign was using Willis's office space without charge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1155.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. Was on brief. Was on brief. Both the Narragansetts and the State of Rhode Island filed suits disputing the issue of whether the Tribe's operation of a smoke shop and sale of cigarettes on the Tribe's settlement lands are exempt from the application and enforcement of Rhode Island's cigarette tax laws. The State initially filed its complaint in Rhode Island state court and the Narragansetts removed the case to federal district court in an attempt to have it decided together with the Tribe's complaint. Which was brought in federal district court. The district court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the state case and remanded it to the state court. We are asked whether the district court could exercize jurisdiction over the State's complaint. 6 7 (1st Cir. 1997).</P> <P> The Narragansett Indian Tribe is a federally recognized </P> <P>Indian tribe located in the State of Rhode Island. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514765.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The gravamen of the Second Amended Complaint is that during the class period of August 21. E&Y is being sued because it served as NDC's independent auditor and issued audit opinions on the Company's 2003 and 2004 financial statements. After the opposition and reply papers were filed. 2002 through the first quarter of fiscal year Channel stuffing is a practice whereby a company floods distribution channels by employing incentives to induce customers into purchasing their products in large quantities. If </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1996/96a1275p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is the second time that this habeas corpus proceeding has been before us. We will reverse. I. William Weatherwax was indicted for the shooting death of St. Only one of those arguments is relevant to this appeal. Weatherwax alleged that during his trial a juror was observed with a newspaper containing an article about the trial. Reasoning that the newspaper article was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3DC0E87BDDA3BAB88256EB300548E33/$file/0199008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was viciously LEAVITT v. The relentless and merciless assault took place on her waterbed and with such implacable force that the bed itself was punctured and torn. She was also stabbed multiple times: One thrust caused the knife to enter her right lung. Another exceedingly peculiar and unique wound inflicted during this attack was a cut made by the attacker through which he then removed her sexual organs. For it was done in a manner that is difficult to accomplish. The evidence pointing to Leavitt was powerful. If circumstantial he was not caught redhanded. The victim's body was not found for several days which caused the destruction of some evidentiary markers. Who thought that Leavitt was the culprit. Another strange aspect of the case was that a person supposedly named Mike Jenkins also called the police a couple of times during that period and showed knowledge of details of the crime that only the killer himself would know. Mike Jenkins was not known in Blackfoot and was not heard of thereafter. Is 7780 LEAVITT v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAEC0F3D7F6C5B7488256F6B007897F0/$file/0215475.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WL (9th Cir. 2004) (unpublished disposition). **This appeal was withdrawn from submission pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miller El v. This Opinion was circulated to the panel on October 23. 1 we hold the state court's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FAE4FA67AEAA4EDF88256EEB005716EE/$file/0310103.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Maitreya Badami was also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellee and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for amicus curiae Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of California and was on the briefs. Was also on the briefs. This is my punishment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/011048P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the letter was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAyNTAtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-0250-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are persons who were involved in federally mandated drug testing of the plaintiff that resulted in the termination of his employment. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's federal constitutional claims but concluded that his state law civil claims were not preempted by federal law and entered an order declining to dismiss them. Was terminated from his employment by Delta Air Lines in 1993 because airline officials thought he had failed a drug test required of him as an airline employee by federal law. That the defendants appellants conducted the tests in violation of federal regulations and industry standards and that they falsely represented to Delta that Drake's urine sample was adulterated.1 The district court (Frederic Block. Concluding that they were not preempted by federal law. The issues raised on appeal are whether and to what extent federal statutes and regulations concerning drug testing of persons employed in the aviation industry preempt the application of state tort law to events arising out of such drug tests. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041462np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Applying the same test that the District Court should have applied. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943145.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The four defendants are Healthchoice. The and Orlando Regional hospital's parent The incidents giving rise to the lawsuit are Dr. attempt to gain provider membership in unsuccessful Healthchoice and CFMA. Because we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact about Dr. That the defendants are accordingly entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The following is a summary of the facts as viewed in the light most favorable to Dr. Levine is an internist. completing his residency in California. Was granted. Provisional staff privileges at the ORHS hospitals.2 ORHS is a nonprofit organization that owns and operates five Orlando area hospitals: Orlando Regional Medical Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052184np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm because we conclude that there is no merit to these contentions. Our recitation of the facts will be abbreviated. Stewart was indicted on June 11. He was charged with conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute more than five kilograms. His motion to dismiss the indictment for prearrest delay was denied. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the conspiracy count. Stewart contends that he was denied his right to due process because of the delay of almost two years before he was indicted in the District of Delaware. A criminal complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint was dismissed by a magistrate judge for lack of probable cause. A District Court's findings with respect to actual prejudice and intentional delay are reviewed for clear error. The District Court found that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Glen Coe appeals the denial of habeas relief regarding the Tennessee state courts' determination that he is competent to be executed pursuant to Ford v. The trial court determined that Coe was entitled to a hearing on this issue because he had satisfied a threshold showing that there existed a genuine disputed issue regarding his competency to be executed. The hearing was held from January 24 to January 28. 2000 that Coe is competent to be executed. Coe filed in federal district court an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the Tennessee courts' determination that he is competent for execution under Ford. Further briefing and an appellate oral argument are not necessary. Wainwright This circuit has never been presented with the opportunity to examine the adequacy of a state's procedures to determine whether a death row prisoner is competent to be executed pursuant to Ford v. The Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a state from executing a prisoner who is insane. Justice Powell concluded that prisoners will be considered insane for the purposes of competency to be executed when they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0182p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Given the way in which vertical integration of the waste disposal services are provided by Monarch pursuant to its arrangement with the County for waste collection. Pursuant to which Monarch is the exclusive contractor for collecting and processing all the solid waste generated in the city of Bowling Green. Huish's claim is that the ordinance and companion agreement violate both the so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1828.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jefferson Melish</U> was on brief. The scope of that jurisdiction was narrow. The Authority and plaintiff appellant Ninigret Development Corporation (Ninigret) a Rhode Island business corporation in which a member of the Tribe apparently is a principal embarked upon a series of business transactions.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1511.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Was tried in Massachusetts state court in 1986 for the rape. Who were white. Caldwell was ultimately convicted on all charges by a jury that had no black members. These convictions were reversed by the Massachusetts Appeals Court on the ground that several of the challenges were impermissibly race based. That ground was rejected and the conviction was reinstated by the unanimous Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Finding that two of the peremptory challenges at issue were discriminatory under Batson v. When the man was ready to leave. When Caldwell was arrested and informed that he was suspected of kidnapping and rape. Caldwell said that on the night in question he was with his girlfriend until about 3 a.m. Caldwell later changed his statement and said that he was with his girlfriend until about 2:45 a.m. Caldwell was charged with rape. The judge then refilled the jury box with eligible jurors after each challenge or group of challenges was exercised. Stating that the prosecutor had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1118.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Demissie and Grayer & Dilday were on brief. I. BACKGROUND The factual foundation of the case is laid elsewhere. Stokes' anticipated release date from state confinement is in 2006. He averred that the prosecution was 2 time barred and that the protracted preindictment delay violated (a) his Fifth Amendment right to due process. If he were to be convicted on the federal charge. Was timely. The cornerstone of the district court's order is its conclusion that a medley of constitutional concerns. Lombard I is well wide of the mark. Lombard I is a sentencing case. Its analysis is unique to the milieu of the federal sentencing guidelines. Judge Harrington's reading of Lombard I is undone by Lombard II (which. Was decided some two weeks after Judge Harrington ruled). The short of it is that the district court did not cite. We have not unearthed. We are confident that. The whole is no more than the sum of the parts. Stokes' able counsel points out that we have recognized in other contexts the principle of cumulative effect. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0419p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the Rule was constitutional and that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. Plaintiffs now appeal the holdings that the Rule was not contrary to the freedom of association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. Rule 12 was repromulgated as Rule 24. Rule 24 was replaced by a substantially identical Rule 46. Rule 46 was revised to clarify the definitions of family member and visitor and recognize the power of the MDOC to grant individual employees limited exemptions to the Rule. An employee would have to submit a misleadingly titled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0255p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The conviction is AFFIRMED. The sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further findings consistent with this opinion. Background The underlying facts in this case are not in dispute. Tyrice Sawyers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0622n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lorenzo Hibbler ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1971.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Because the state court decision affirming his conviction was neither contrary to. The cause of the fire was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0227p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was denied. Bell Page 2 We have now heard Cone's appeal three times because the United States Supreme Court has twice reversed our decisions granting relief. We will affirm the district court's original judgment denying Cone's petition. The details of Cone's brutal crimes are not material to the issues we address in this appeal. They are fully set forth in Cone v. The details of this case's procedural history are material to the issues before us on this appeal and we recount them now. The jury found four aggravating factors: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-2431_048.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which requires 2 No. 03 2431 district judges to screen prisoner suits for merit as soon as they are filed. The joinder of the Bureau of Prisons was indeed frivolous. Who is in prison because he was convicted in 1999 of selling a defaced firearm. Was sentenced to 130 months in prison. Is the lawful owner of some stocks that he wanted to instruct his broker to sell if their prices fell below specified levels. The prison offers them an opportunity to have their numbers removed from the list. 28 C.F.R. § 540.101(a)(2). Apparently the procedure was not followed in this case. King was allowed to make one call to his stockbroker and then issued a disciplinary citation for misusing his telephone privileges. The government argues that calling a stockbroker is improper because a prisoner is not allowed to conduct a No. 03 2431 3 business. Indeed he is not. This is a permissible restriction on prisoners' residual freedom. Unless one is engaged in a financial business. Contingent on a price change) is no more the conduct of a business than asking a real estate broker to sell one's house is. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/022013P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Riley Noel was convicted of three counts of capital murder and was sentenced to death. Noel first claims that defense counsel was ineffective at trial for asking Mr. Effectively destroyed any credibility that he might have had with the jury. The Arkansas Supreme Court rejected this claim on the ground that the exchange was designed to impress the jury with petitioner's sincerity. A finding that was supported by counsel's post conviction hearing testimony and by counsel's remarks during closing argument. We may grant the writ only if the state court's decision </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/012220pc.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PA 19107 Attorney for Appellee OPINION PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a District Court order denying a request for a preliminary injunction against the Pennsylvania Liquor Code's ban on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/963045P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Magill was an active judge at the time this case was submitted and assumed senior status on April 1. Before the opinion was filed. I. The Plan was established in 1971 as a multiemployer employee benefit plan. The employers that took part in the Plan were Edgerton. Each of the employers are fiduciaries of the Plan </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0866p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Santo Idone ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7B1859A297BB34B488256D4F006E9488/$file/0199016.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Oscar Gates was sentenced to death for murdering Lonnie Stevenson in 1979. A crime for which Gates was later convicted. Gates's neighbors testified he was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B3E9BE4192D907C98825713F0008E47A/$file/0555265.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Bea *This case was submitted for decision without oral argument. 3317 3320 YEE v. The prosecutor is unable to recall the basis for her challenge. Is the California counterpart to Batson v. Established a three step evidentiary framework to determine whether peremptory challenges were exer1 YEE v. The prosecutor stated she was unable to remember why she struck one of the male venire members. Is narrow: Was it contrary to. We hold that it was. That is exactly what the prosecutor failed to do. cised to exclude jurors impermissibly. DUNCAN We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm. Twice while the patients were under anesthesia. Yee was charged with three counts of sexual battery in violation of California Penal Code § 243.4(c). Against that person's will while that person is unlawfully restrained either by the accused or an accomplice. Or is institutionalized for medical treatment and is seriously disabled or medically incapacitated. Is guilty of sexual battery. A violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1580p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> SER contends that PP&L impermissibly curtailed purchases of SER generated electric energy and that SER was therefore unable to compete with PP&L in the provision of electric energy to consumers in the retail market and resellers in the wholesale market. SER is PP&L's supplier. That PP&L's generation curtailment policy does not create an injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent. We will affirm. Any person who owns or operates facilities used to transmit or sell electric energy in interstate commerce is subject to the jurisdiction and regulatory power of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/991854.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the district court's order dismissing the complaint on the ground that appellants have not alleged an injury to business or property cognizable under RICO. Appellants instituted this purported class action on behalf of themselves and all members of a class 4 consisting </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1012p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have before us an appeal and a cross appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey awarding counsel fees to the appellants. Unreasonable and excessive time in determining the lodestar.[fn1] The principles governing attorney fee awards are set out in Hensley v. We will therefore vacate its award of attorney fees and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because the district court's order denying PIRG any of the fees it incurred in litigating the fee dispute was premised on the amount it awarded in the underlying citizens' suit. We will also vacate that order and direct the district court to reconsider this fee request after it recalculates the amount due PIRG for legal services it incurred in the underlying citizens' suit. We will affirm the district court's determination that the relevant legal market for calculating the lodestar is the District of New Jersey. Its conclusion that attorneys' time reasonably spent in preparing a statutorily required notice of intent is reimbursable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001139.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Factors governing the amount of sanctions awarded under Rule 11 are quite different from factors governing the amount of attorney's fees awarded under§ 1988. Because the incorrect standard was used. It is impossible to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in setting the amount of the sanction. The matter is remanded so that the district court may apply the proper standard in assessing the Rule 11 sanction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-3061.htm">01-3061 -- U.S. V. CASTORENA-JAIME -- 04/03/2002<BR></A><BR> Defendants Julio Castorena Jaime and Ramona Alvarez were passengers in the vehicle. (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to convict her. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/02-1434.htm">02-1434 -- RECTOR V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 11/06/2003<BR></A><BR> Their primary claim is that the parking tickets erroneously lead ticket recipients to believe that they will be assessed a late fee if they do not pay the ticket within the allotted twenty day period. We have thus remanded these claims for decertification and dismissal. With respect to the claims for which Plaintiffs are representative of the class. Factual Background</strong> <ol> <ol> <li><u>Denver's Parking Regime</u> </li> </ol> </ol> <p> The material facts concerning the procedures used by Denver for enforcing its parking regulations are not in dispute. <p> In authorizing the collection of parking fines. If the fine is paid within twenty days. The matter is concluded. He is instructed to call the phone number printed on the ticket. The ticket recipient is advised either to submit specific documentation for an investigation or to appear in person at the office of the parking referee in Denver. Recipients who appear at the parking referee's office are advised of the procedures relevant to the hearing and are then given an opportunity to seek a fine reduction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-14463.opn.html">SMITH V. UNITED PARCEL SERV. (7/11/2002, NO. 01-14463)<BR></A><BR> Who is legally blind. Asserted repeatedly that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974080.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 4080 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. That it is inaccurate in other respects. A written order to the same effect was issued the next day. Wood states that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-14463.opn.html">SMITH V. UNITED PARCEL SERV. (7/11/2002, NO. 01-14463)<BR></A><BR> Who is legally blind. Asserted repeatedly that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024995.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The Supreme Court held that it was constitutionally impermissible for either the prosecution or the defense to use race based peremptory strikes. When a Batson challenge is made. If the requisite showing is made. All that is required is that the reason be race neutral. Once steps one and two are met. The trial court must decide whether the explanation is pretextual and whether the opponent of the strike has met its burden of proving purposeful discrimination. The critical question in determining purposeful discrimination is at step three and rests on the persuasiveness of the justification for the peremptory strike. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0224.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant Jason Scott Byram was convicted by a South Carolina jury of murder. He was sentenced to death for the murder. Was robbed and murdered in her home. Johnson indicated to her husband and the police that she was attacked by an individual acting alone. The trial court held a hearing on the admissibility of Byram's confession and held that the statements were freely. The witness also testified that no one was in the van with Byram. Byram was represented at trial by Douglas Strickler as lead counsel and public defender Lee Coggiola as second counsel. Byram was convicted by a jury in Columbia. She related details of his early family life in an abusive home and the fact that he was slow to develop as a young child. Califf also reported that Byram had difficulties in school and that his intelligence was in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1519.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution is a citizen passed campaign finance reform amendment designed to limit the influence of certain types of corporations' general funds on state elections. Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman is automatically substituted for former Colorado Secretary of State Gigi Dennis as the Defendant Appellant/Cross Appellee in this case. <hr> part to CRLC and in part to the Secretary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. We hold that the challenged sections of Article XXVIII regulating corporate expenditures and electioneering communications are unconstitutional as applied to CRLC because CRLC meets Supreme Court approved exemption requirements for a voluntary ideological corporation that seeks to engage in political speech. We conclude that Article XXVIII's definition of a political committee is unconstitutional as applied to CRLC because it fails to incorporate Buckley v. That political contributions from corporate treasuries are not an indication of popular support for the corporation's political ideas and can unfairly influence theoutcome of Colorado's elections. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011652.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We affirm. oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111314.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant pled nolo contendere in Florida state court to second degree murder and was sentenced to 85 years' imprisonment. Appellant was extradited to Florida to serve the remainder of his original sentence. Concluding Appellant was procedurally barred from relitigating issues that had already been raised in his mandamus petition and denying Appellant's remaining claims on the merits. Since he alleges he is in custody pursuant to a state judgment in violation of his constitutional rights. His appropriate avenue for relief is under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413027.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: In the Spring of 2003 Mike Price was head coach of the University of Alabama's Crimson Tide football team. The head coach at a major university is a powerful figure. Who are in highest places. Have the most power . . . have the least liberty. Because they are most observed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA0MjYtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0426-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was not procedurally barred. That reconstruction of the prosecutor's reasons for excluding certain minority jurors was possible. Is not barred by procedural default. That reconstruction of the prosecutor's non discriminatory reasons for peremptorily challenging certain minority jurors was possible. Petitioner David Green was arrested in Jamaica. He was subsequently charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in violation of New York Penal Law § 220.39[1] and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree in violation of New York Penal Law § 220.03. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Green was tried in Supreme Court. The jury was chosen using the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ5NDEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4941-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is the second infringement case we have heard regarding the same trademark. It may fairly be said that in many cases a handbag is so essential that its owner would be lost without it. We emphasized that to determine whether two products are confusingly similar it is improper to conduct a side by side comparison in 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 lieu of focusing on actual market conditions and the type of confusion alleged. Vuitton's trademark Multicolore handbag design is the same as it was in the earlier case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAyNTAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0250-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are persons who were involved in federally mandated drug testing of the plaintiff that resulted in the termination of his employment. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 federal constitutional claims but concluded that his state law claims were not preempted by federal law and entered an order declining to dismiss them. Was terminated from his employment by Delta Air Lines in 1993 because airline officials thought he had failed a drug test required of him as an airline employee by federal law. That the defendants appellants conducted the tests in violation of federal regulations and industry standards and that they falsely represented to Delta that Drake's urine sample was adulterated.1 The district court (Frederic Block. Concluding that they were not preempted by federal law. The issues raised on appeal are whether and to what extent federal statutes and regulations concerning drug testing of persons employed in the aviation industry preempt the application of state tort law to events arising out of such drug tests. </TD> </TR> </TABLE> <!-- End of real page content --> <!-- kludgy empty paragraph acts as spacer --> <P></P> <!-- This is the place for the lower nav bar and footer --> <!-- the following is Mason-included: footer.htm --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close extra div (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close middle (opened in header.htm) --> <div id="footer"> <div class="footerNav"> <div><!-- getting ridiculous, i know --> <ul> <li><a href="/lii.html" class="nav">about us</a></li> <li><a href="/tour.html" class="nav" id="liisitemaplink" title="lii sitemap">sitemap</a></li> <li><a href="/help/" class="nav">help</a></li> <li><a href="/comments/credits.html" class="nav">terms of use</a></li> </ul> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close ridiculous div --> </div><!-- close footerNav --> </div><!-- close footer --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close collection (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close ours (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close container (opened in header.htm) --> <!-- end of included footer --> </BODY> </HTML> <!-- end of HTML --> <!-- code from here on down --> <!-- input arguments are: a query (optional) --> <!-- to begin with... This init block sets up and runs the query. --> <!-- select correct options based on scope -->